"Boring Openings"!!

Just for that I refuse to view your profile.

just tak over pl,ay more aggesivly as black and the boring system won't work

Actually from my experience of the "boring" systems that strategy can backfire on Black very quickly!

All I do is just take the initiative (usually after playing ...d5, to soon play ...c5) and try to use it positionally and slowly try to press an advantage (because people who play passive systems generally follow a book or something on what moves to play and don't play with imagination just wait for their opponent). Yes tactical players will get annoyed because you simply can't break through early with reasonable play by white.

 I play the London system if I'm against a higher rated opponent or it's an important game because there isn't really much to learn to use this opening effectively and it's quite hard to go wrong. If you're black it's quite easy to use the same set-up assuming you aren't playing a GM.

I don't think black is better in the above diagram.

I don't think white is better either, as usually occurs in non-mainline d4 openings the position is equal with mutual chances.

My favourite way to handle a 'system' is basically to approach it with a 'system' of your own.  Especially petrosian style :P ... just bat the ball back to their court until they actually have to do something on their own.  It drives KIA and stonewall players nuts :P.  ie. Nf3 Nf6 g3 g6 Bg2 Bg7 and they'll eventually be forced to either transpose or give black the equality/a slight edge.  It's nasty but such a great way to bug your opponents. 

Keep in mind that many of these systems are theoretically suspect and can be absolutely hammered if you'd rather play 'real chess' :P.

In the above diagram of 446919, I prefer white.

To me it looks pretty equal, and that's what fritz thinks as well. To some it may look like black is better. It seems like white is tied up on the queenside, but the only thing black gets for that is the queen on c1. There is no pressure on d4 right now as it's defended by two pawns. Black does have the two bishops and can probably eventually advance in the center with ...d5 and ...e5 hopefully. the h6 g5 structure is more likely to be a weakness than a strength ( though it could come to g4) But with white's limited attacking possibilities (besisdes the Bd3) because of his one bishop means it's difficult to take advantage of it. What's white going to do? Castle queenside? That seems too risky. So it's pretty well balanced and debatable who is better. it's kind of a dull position though, and one that would probably fizzle out to a draw because it's hard for either side to make use of their small advantages. And it's hard to say this line of the london system is pressuring black.

Is there such a think as a "boring" opening or just "boring" people? 

Is the English botvinnik position for black not boring?

The Ruy Lopez is far from boring--there are many very complex lines--one I use is the Riga and it is quite complicated. And I would not classify the Marshall as boring either.

Most boring?

Propably Borg Defense...

Does anyone else feel this way?  

OK,  The midgame is fine. Its interesting , usually fast action, fire power: its also related to your reaction time in a live game. Its practically like an arcade game.

But when it comes to openings, you have to read some book or learn from a teaching video. You have to memorize all the different openings and variations. And they are all so BORING.  Its like doing homework !  or  office work  - the preparation is everything. There are no reflexes involved just a good memory. So whats the big deal. If I read one or two opening books for 7 hours and my friend reads for only 1 hour, I am probably going to beat him badly in the opening. So what? I just invested more time in it. I have  no personal ability that allowed me to win in the opening. Just my thought.

Well, what makes a good opening move is determined by logic, and logic is generally fun. I think the real reason for not liking opening study is because there are so many options, and it would take so long to go through every idea, that it's tempting to simply rush through them, play out 15 moves of theory with the classic evaluation "and white has a pleasant edge as in the game Capablanca-Winter, 1880," or whatever. In those cases you're just not thinking about the logic of the moves or plans but are just regurgitating moves with no thought. Of course that wouldn't be fun. If you actually think about the strategies, then it can be interesting just like any position in chess.

Of course it's interester to play Ruy Lopez or Sicilian :Opocensky, but if it's a longer game, almost every opening is very interesting. How to get better, what to move neyt. It's all great in unknown, boring positions. 

...unless it's bullet -.- :D

It doesn't matter imo. Any blitz specialist will tell ya:

If you're playing a marathon with a guy who's booked up but has problems getting his pieces positioned for tactics, give yourself a weakness whether it be a pawn weakness or space disadvantage that requires a slow buildup to tactics for him to win.

He might gain lots-o-space but he will never go in for the kill because he won't know how. In the mean time you can just play positionally horrid moves because he won't be able to punish you tactically for them. Soon your horrible mistakes will end up becoming dangerous attacks, he will blunder and you just keep battering him with attacks.

The key is to avoid his "priyomes" which are critical positions in a chess game. Most of them will come from his book full of games that show what stronger players did so he will have some idea of what to do there. Avoid those and go for tactics and irrational positions and all will be well.

1.e4 c6?/? (that is a new symbol of boring)