I may actually take up the KIA again. I don't think it's so bad. If black plays with the structure e6, d5, and c5, white can counterattack by playing c3 d4 e5. This should work because all of his pieces are developed. The problem is that you can't force black to do what you want but I would probably play it as a suprise weapon. You can act like black if you want to. Against the drawish setup with just ...e5 and ...d5 with simple development I may just play c4 and transpose into a kind of dragon sicilian but with a solid extra tempo. This would probably avoid most of the ultra sharp lines since black didn't know what white was going to do. It's much better than the hippo though, even if it is a little reactionary for white. It's a great strategic opening.
"Boring Openings"!!
Those openings are completely different.
Those openings are completely different.
I think he meant you should try both so you get a feeling for the polar opposites of awesome in the chess opening universe. For example, the king's gambit is the manliest opening ever and the KIA is the chessic equivalent of a maxi-pad. 
KIA :
- open positions : low
- control : high
- annoyance level : average
- theory : average
- subtelty : average
KG :
- open positions : high
- control : low
- annoyance level : low
- theory : high
- subtelty : average
I don't think they're exactly opposite
The Catalan is a great "boring" opening, though I don't find it boring. I usually end up playing it with black when my opponent has a passive setup with pawns on d4 and c3 or e3 but not c4.
The Open Catalan is one of the least boring openings I can think of.
Wow, in the game explorer it's like 45% draw.
Nevertheless, in the open catalan white often sacrifices a pawn or two for a development advantage and central control. The lines have been analyzed VERY heavily especially in the last 5 years or so that Kramnik has been playing the line a lot. This may explain the high draw percentage.
The closed Catalan is another kettle of fish...
I think the opening-elitism is a bit high from some players, heck, Bent Larsen managed to have a few beautiful games with 1. d3, Petrosian (and Fischer) had some beautiful games with the KIA, and you even encounter 1... b6 in fairly high tournaments now and then.
I think a lot of people who discuss chess theory should really shut the f**k up. Chess is more who you are than what you've read. A dull mind will never create an original attack no matter how many books they've read. Likewise, a sharp mind will never not be original no matter how many books they've read.
fascinating
I agree with the sentiment that opening theory doesn't matter in a practical sense to most players.
But for some it is still a fascinating discussion - and in a theoretical discussion one wouldn't seriously consider quite a few practical openings. It doesn't make the practical openings less of a real try to win the game or to have fun.
I think a lot of people who discuss chess theory should really shut the f**k up. Chess is more who you are than what you've read. A dull mind will never create an original attack no matter how many books they've read. Likewise, a sharp mind will never not be original no matter how many books they've read.
Well I think learning about openings is very underrated, since most people say "concentrate on tactics because your opponent won't play the moves you know anyway" or something. Well, it's true that blank memorization is going to get you nowhere if you don't know the ideas of the opening, but learning about opening ideas and memorizing (like so you can be more prepared for a tournament game) is a very big help to your game. If you study the french for example, you learn about breaking down the pawn chain as well as many other things. In the queen's gambit, you learn positional ideas like the minority attack and play on the queenside and center. In fact, the only other way to study strategy yourself is to go over master games, but what you want to learn depends on not only the player but the opening. If you want to see how a GM can beat another GM with the black side of a QGD, you'll probably learn some pretty subtle ideas. And studying sharp openings like the king's gambit are pretty fun and are perfect for mastering attack and tactics and the added bonus is that when you play the KG, you'll know exactly what to do and the reason why as well as your strength increasing in general. It's kind of ironic that I don't think white has enough compensation in the KG and in a game with it as black I'm actually sacing a pawn for an attack of my own! So i think I have learned that a particulary good idea from black in the KG accepted lines is to keep the extra pawn if you can but lookout for a possible ...d5 that could actually take over the initiative even if it costs a pawn. After all, white's king isn't so safe either. Even endgames can be studied from the opening if you play the ruy lopez exchange variation. Openings tend to flow into middlegames so you get better at that as well. And I could give dozens of other examples of what openings help you better understand chess, both playing and studying them.
I think a lot of people who discuss chess theory should really shut the f**k up. Chess is more who you are than what you've read. A dull mind will never create an original attack no matter how many books they've read. Likewise, a sharp mind will never not be original no matter how many books they've read.
Odd. I was so sure that I disagreed with you, then I re-read it a couple of more times. I tend to agree that a person who quotes tons of opening theory well beyond their playing level doesn't have a ton of useful information. They most likely are very difficult to beat in the opening, and they often emerge from the opening with the better position, especially in blitz. But it doesn't help if your tactics, attack, defense, and positional knowledge haven't kept up.
On the flipside, it must be VERY difficult to be an extremely talented player over the board and yet to always feel like your opening knowledge is inferior. You're always fighting an uphill battle.
It's best to be somewhere in the middle, so that you aren't always losing the opening battle, but also so that you aren't always "losing good positions" leaving you frustrated.
It should be somewhere in the middle, at least at intermediate and higher. But opening theory is so complex yet people think it has nothing to do with the rest of the game so they just study tactics and try to "use opening principles" which will probably not work on an opening like the french, which is one reason why I play it.
I think principles are fine.
So how would I do in a game playing 1.e4 against you, Elubas - if you played the French as black. And I didn't play the exchange variation.
Sometimes I wonder how bad would it really be if I switched to 1.e4.
I vow, right here, that once I get the FM title that I will switch to 1.e4!
A very good point that Elubas made earlier that depending on your opening choice your going to have to deal certain strategic concepts in the middlegame. I guess it should go without saying but still its an important thing to keep in mind especially when your experimenting with different openings.
I wasn't talking about here at chess.com, I was talking OTB.
Of course I'd be ok here, for the reasons you mention. It might be interesting to play a "circle of trust" style game with someone who is an expert in one of the 1.e4 openings. But this is a bit off, since for now I must live along with the rest of the world in the sub-2300-FIDE morass.
Personally, I find the "boring" white systems some of the most difficult to play against. When I'm playing black I often feel like I need to take a punch to land a punch and when white isn't swinging, I feel like I've got nothing to hit back at....nothing to target, no weakness to exploit.
I think I've been spoiled by the Sicilian.
I think the reason you find boring White systems hard to play against,"nothing to target, no weakness to exploit", is due to the fact that there are some good openings for White out there which forms a passive position that prepares an attack slowly (in short, they are playing more strategically). They may play boring and slow moves, but their position, due to the fact that it so not scattered, has formed quite a defense and it is difficult to break through unless White himself chooses to suddenly moves his pieces out of their cramped position.
In my opinion, the best way to play aginst such "turtle"( boring, slow, passive, but very good in defending 
)openings is to prepare your position for any possible attacks and at that same time get ready in front of White's pieces (yes, cramp 'em too much and they have no choice but to try to break out!) to crush their "shell" once they start to make "not so boring" moves.
The Sicilian is for tactical players. No wonder you have a hard time trying to exploit the weaknesses of the various "turtle" openings!
GM Khachiyan said in a lecture that people play the KIA because they don't know what their job is as White (i.e. to press for an advantage). I'll never forget his words: "These people think they're Black, but they're White."