openings that you can always use

Hi guys, I was reading through this forum, trying to learn some set openings, but I was wondering if there are any opening structures that don't require certain moves from the opponent. Most of the chess players that I play won't know the opening and so won't reply with the corresponding move Many thanks

THe kings indian attack.  Sort of like the reti opening. Also the Kings indian defense works well against most things. 

I know someone who plays 1...d6 2...c6 and 3...Nd7 against anything. It looks craptastic, but it does get you to move 4!

I don't play the Colle system, but its set up that way.  With black, I do play the Caro-Slav pawn set up that Soltis wrote a book about.  I can play it against pretty much anything I'll see at the woodpusher level.

+1

If you're just looking for a good way to beat the guys down at the bar, or Uncle Louie, you don't have to worry in the least about losing just because you use a "system opening."

People get blinded by the tiny reality reflected in their own little world.  Tournament players facing IM's over the board need to worry about the theoretical status of their pet openings.  You don't.  Virtually nobody does.  If you don't aspire to play high-level tournament chess, you'll do fine with a KIA, or London system, or Colle system for the rest of your life.  Indeed, practice it regularly, and I can practically guarantee you that you'll be the best chess player in your little circle of acquaintances.

Most players are WORSE because they worry about using GM-level openings instead of coming as close as they can to perfecting the simple but fundamentally flawed "systems" that dominate at every level below that.

You can try to spend a lifetime puzzling out the nuances of the Ruy Lopez, the Open Sicilian, the Semi-Slav, etc...and maybe in twenty years, you can be so good at them that master level will become a possibility.  At which point you'll be wondering why you squandered twenty years of your life on something so inane and pointless.  If you're not currently ten years old, GM level is pointless to worry about.

Or you can spend a year playing the Blackmar-Deimer or something five times every day, and reach a similar level...become THE GUY in your entire circle of acquaintances that everyone ooooohs and aaaaaahs over and is terrified to play because you know every in and out and can conjure up tactics like a wizard...and settle for becoming a local legend.  No, you'll never beat Anand with this.  But frankly, you'll never beat Anand with any opening, no matter how theoretically hale it is.

On forums like these, people like to talk about what is and isn't worthy of consideration in a GM-level repertoire, and the unspoken but ugly truth is that nobody doing the talking will ever be good enough a player for that to make the least bit of difference in their results.

99.9% of the people here would be far, FAR better chess players in the long run if they played systems and said bollocks to the Ruy and the Sicilian.

Frankly i totally disagree. In the long run it's clearly better to play different structures. By doing this you will improve even without studying.

When you play a new structure you are not learning moves, you are learning ideas which will help you even in the old situations. Of course a 1500 player learning by hearth 21 moves in the poisoned pawn variation is bounded to defeat as soon as the opponent deviates becouse he can't understand the ideas in these complex positions. But playing main lines doesn't means studying a lot. You can start with a very basic repertoire and some understanding. This will make you the terros of the club much more than any Blackmar Diemer and related stuff, because:

-An average open sicilian line is much more aggressive and sharp than most BDG positions, where B has several options to give the pawn back with easy equality.

-It is stronger. It's not a question of variations. Simply the position irradiates potential while the non theorethical stuff doesn't. This applies even without knowing theory.

After some time a guy will massacre you using some theory and better understanding. At that point you will study some theory too, and read something to improve your understanding. 

And again.

And again.

you'll became stronger while you build a progressively deeper repertoire.

It will came the day when the gambiiter will realize that he is not scoring well anymore. He has no more secret tricks. The opponents have learned how to steer his games in boring (and often umpleasant) endgames, while their openings give him no chances of a simple solution. He will be forced to take up sicilians and other main lines, with the differences that everyone around him is already booked and now he has really to learn 15 moves deep lines by hearth.

Maybe in the short run the BDG player will feel like he is the clever one, but in the long run? i doubt. 

(PS: neither BGB nor london sistems are so bad, expecially the second is sometimes played in master games. But this is because a GM has the understanding to find the situations where the sistem works. No GM plays the colle-zukertort against everything, but someone use it against favourable move order. Using sistems this way is not at all a way to cut theory.Also stronger club players tham me use this sistems, but this is not what make them stronger.)

the lions system is pretty decent 1...d6 2...Nf6 3...Nbd7 theres a website completely devoted to this system but I can't rember the name right off back sorry. there's also a website devoted entirely to the Colle system aswell but agin memory foggy.

Yes foundamentally is a move order designed to get a very interesting hanham philidor setup. But as far as i know ( but remember i really know little ) this is not so great if W goes for a c4d4 setup instead of a d4e4 one. Looking at that lines B seems very passive to me, while the hanham setup really is full of potential plans.

e4 followed by d4 as white against everything

here is the website you are talking about.

http://www.vanrekom.nl/thelion/indexgb.htm 

Its not bad. 

 +1

Many years ago, I achieved a 2012 USCF rating by basically playing system openings like the King's Indian Attack and the London System.  I was only a fair tactician, and regarding the endgame, I didn't even know the basic techinque of winning with K+R+P vs. K+R.  I essentially made it to 2000 by not losing to short combinations. 

Back in the 1980's, I knew two players who achieved the master title while playing "second-best" openings.  One of them played the London System every game as White, while the other one played Bird's Opening exclusively.  (I think Grandmaster Danielsen plays the Bird exclusively.)

LoL. I like this quote.

i really like this.

I think there are pros and cons to both approaches. But in my experience, systems openings can't bring you much higher than 1700 FIDE or so. Which is certainly enough to beat casual players on a regular basis and fare correctly in an open tournament, but no more.

However, there are advocates of this approach in the famous Russian chess school (for example Yusupov !), provided you also study a lot of tactics and endgames 

Estragon's point about thinking is the real key to the question