Who else does not play e5 and d5

After e4 e5? Or d4 d5? I haven't played e4 e5 and d4 d5 for decades. I did as a beginner and when I learned about openings, never played them again except against young beginners. I became devoted to Sicilian and Gruenfeld Defense. I played other defence ofc like Scandinavian, Carokann, French and Nimzo Indian and Queen Indian Defence. Anyone no longer play double pawn defence?/

I don't typically unless I am desperate to play something different against a player I have played 20+ times.

I also avoid the Grunfeld like the plague though.  French and King's Indian Defenses for me!  Occasionally I will play a Sicilian via 1.e4 e6 2.Nf3 c5 (instead of d5), and occasionally I'll play a Dutch (1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5, where if say, 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 c6 5.Nf3, then I will play 5...d5, but I wouldn't call that the same as 1.d4 d5 by any stretch of the imagination.

So not the same main defenses as you (French vs Sicilian and King's Indian vs Grunfeld), but like you, not e4 e5 or d4 d5.

I don't mind 1...d5 all that much. QGD can be fun and interesting. Or play tarrasch.  That being said I hate 1...e5 and only play it against beginners who only know the Ruy lopez, so that way they can "stay in book"  for a few moves before they have to figure out what to play.

I prefer 1...g6 against most everything. Against the English or KIA I might try for a dutch.

Many say Sicilian is too complex for intermediate players. I say Ruy Lopez + Scotch + Italian + Vienna + King's Gambit + etc is even more study demanding as black. Yet many tell intermediate players to reply e5 against e4.

Also petrov's defense.  Anyway, I found this to be the case when I was starting out in chess. Too many ways where you are "following" opening principles, common sense development, and get rekt coming out of the opening anyway. I did not play e4e5 for long....

d4d5 however much different. played that for far longer before messing around with other stuff.

Neither side dictates the opening.  Both sides do!

I dislike the King's Gambit 1. e4 e5 2. f4! Or Center Game 2. d4! which can transpose to Danish Gambit.

I usually reply 1.e4 with 1...e5 and 1.d4 with 1...d5.

Maybe I will change this behaviour when I become a good player.

And, quite unlickily, almost nobody plays against me 2.f4 or 2.d4.

Most of the top guys play 1...e5 and Queen's Gambit Declined variations. I don't see how changing your repertoire has got to do with becoming a good player. But assuming you become one (besides the fact you're an IM allready), what would your repertoire choice be?

Probably has to do with the level you are playing at. 

I play the caro-kann against e4 and the slav against d4

Thanks for posting. I really enjoy your humor. Many of us "Opening Experts" are lacking in middle game and endgame. But we enjoy studying the opening phase. Opening theory is embellished with Attractive Names unlike middle game and endgame.

Same here.

I think myself and many players have bad memories playing e5 and d5. Many beginners mistakes and blunders. After improving to intermediate stage, evaded e5 and d5 to forget our embarrassing losses.

I used to not play e5 (against e4) and d5 (against d4) but in my old age, I'm reverting to these old chessnuts more frequently. [I still am likely to play a French though.]

Isn't it wise to grow in chess skills by following chess history?  Therefore e5 and d5 before branching out.   Maybe do e5 and d5 until 1900 OTB rating, and then expand repertoire?

Thus finally confirming the huge part lick plays in chess as the bunny had always suspected. 

1. Nf3   and 1. c4 are good openings. 

In 57 games starting with 1. e4 I played e5 once (a draw). I learned the Pirc against e4 and still play it, although it is harder to play versus better, more experienced players than beginners.

In the 19 games opening 1. d4 I have played d6 4 times and didn't do well. I have had better luck with Nf6 - KID played the rest of the time. Again, this is what I learned when starting and continue to play now.