simplist/complicated openings

I am wondering what openings lie on both ends of the spectrum... which ones have the least complications and are straigh forward and which ones are the most eventful.

Often the openings that are the most straightforward are also the most eventful. Take the King's Gambit for instance.

On the straightforward and simplest end of the spectrum I would put the "system" openings, like the King's Indian Attack, the hedgehog, maybe the Modern Defense, the London System. On the complicated end I would put those with the most amount of theory (combined with the property that not knowing that theory can have you lose the game straight out of the opening), such as the King's Indian Defense (interesting how much a tempo is worth, huh?), the Sicilian, the King's Gambit, Evans Gambit, the Marshall Ruy Lopez.

Openings are definitely my weakest point -- I'm wondering, would it be reasonable or accurate to conclude that the "system" openings generally less sharp as a result of their versatility?  I tend to equate less complications with less sharp and visa-versa.

If you start from the premise that it's possible to "lose the game in the opening", basically because of lack of preparation or lack of knowledge, or even forgetting what you knew once, then these system openings are a good choice. I echo Gonnosuke's sentiment there.

In fact, in a recent tournament of mine, I lost a game from the white side of a King's Indian, where my opponent was basically just better prepared than I was. And this was despite that I had put in some preparation time into that opening before the game. I just got unlucky in a sense. My opponent was rated around my rating. In retrospect it sure would have been nice to play something more like 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5.

Thanks -- I really struggle because of the lack of time to "book up" and do rely on opening databases more than I'd care to so that I can get to a point in the early middle-game where I'm still even and can fall back on tactics which are much more my strength in this game.

I've often wondered what the best way to overcome this might be, but the prospect of selecting and then booking up on an opening repertoire seems awfully daunting so it's not something I've yet undertaken.  Because of my preference for tactical play I do tend to like sharper games, but it sounds like it might be worth exploring one or more opening systems to see if they may still suit me.

Simplest are Caro-Kann and Philidor's defense.

Most complicated are Two knights defense 4.Ng5, and Dragon Sicilian

@TheGrobe The easiest way to address this is to better utilize your time with the opening DB. My recent study with the Games Explorer helped a ton in this regard. Here's the basic idea.

I'm assuming that you can play the first couple of moves, to get into an opening, because this advice works best once you're past 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3

When you're faced with a couple of choices, make sure to do your research. What you're after is a discovery of how the games develop after each of those moves. They might be similar or they might be different. That's valuable information right there. What are the plans for each side? Maybe look at a line which scores badly for black - try to figure out why. The only way you can do that is by opening up several of the games and playing through them. If you have to pick and choose the games, try to get some that have a high rating for both sides. But especially a high rating for the side that is winning. Then start looking at some of the other lines, and try to figure out what black is doing to prevent whatever white gained in the lines you just looked at. And so on.

Databases can be used as a crutch or as a tool. They're advocated as a tool but most use them as a crutch.

Guilty.

I will try to find the time to pry myself away from the forums and give this a go -- thanks for the advice.

Keep us updated on your progress, and good luck!

I most definitely see simplicity versus complexity the same way.  The number of viable leaves at depth N is directly proportionate to an opening's complexity.

I tend to view sharpness as a measure of tactical flexibility (i.e. number of viable plans) in a given position and I think my tendency to want to equate this with complexity is rooted in the idea that this mayalso be closely related (although not necessarily) to the width of the opening tree.  Narrow tree tends to mean less options, although this may not hold into the middle-game when a position might simply explode with possibilities despite being quite constrained until that point.

In any case, at the level I play any combination of these can certainly co-exist due to the number of inaccuracies.

The Budapest might also qualify as simple and sharp.

And stoopid.

To me the poisoned pawn winawer seems even more complex. The complex openings are very fun to analyze (although me personally I like to analyze just about any opening, and find the positional ones very instructive) and I think that trying to find the best moves in those positions are excellent for analysis training. If I am to actually play one of those in a real game, then I would need to know plenty of sharp theory.

Yes, but is that sound? If Black is not too greedy he gets an easy game (my opinion).

What is the most complicated line against the Caro-Kann?

I think the sharpness of an opening or position has to do with the existence of hidden traps or surprising moves that can radically alter the assessment.  These are usually related to combinational themes of hunting the king, queening pawns or winning material.  Sharp openings are also ones where the assessment changes quickly over time as new and stronger moves are discovered and older ones discarded.

The simplicity of a position I think has more to do with how the natural moves that spring readily to mind turn out to be good ones.  If a player just follows classical principles of developing towards the centre, keeping one's king safe and one's pawn structure sound, etc. one can find one's way through to a playable position.  Openings where the best responses are well known are also simple in that way.

Simple openings would probably include the Petroff, Queen's Gambit Declined Tartakower, Closed Ruy Lopez, Queen's Indian and Caro-Kann Classical.  Other openings that could be added to the complicated pile would be the Sicilian Dragon, Ruy Lopez Jaenisch, French Winawer Poisoned Pawn, Caro-Kann Bronstein-Larsen, Benko Gambit and QGD Tarrasch Von Hennig-Schara Gambit.

Some openings that were once considered sharp have become simpler because they have been so thoroughly analyzed.  I am thinking in particular of something like the Guioco Piano Moller attack or Evans Gambit.

How wide the range of candidates moves is would seem to feed into complexity, but there is also the question of urgency.  Both you and your opponent may have a wide range of choice as to what to play next, but if most of the candidate moves result in little or no change to the assessment of the position, then this range of choice becomes less daunting.  Also the complexity of some positions can stem less from the range of choice, and more from the difficulty of assessing who is winning because of the uncertain value of certain imbalances in the position.

The Advanced variation 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 in particular the 3...Bf5 4.Nc3 e6 5.g4 line is a fairly enterprising attempt to mix it up from an early stage.  The Fantasy variation 3.f3 is another approach that can give rise to interesting tactics.

Perhaps what you are trying to say is that the resulting middlegames can be quite complex.  I was more concerned with the relative ease with which a player can get to a playable position out of the opening which is probably a slightly different thing.  I think with even a cursory familiarity with theory, one can get to a fairly decent position in a Ruy Lopez, whereas in a Sicilian or a French, there seem to be many more dangerous sidelines where an ill-prepared player might end up getting busted straight out of the opening.

Gonnosuke, it sounds like our differences are to some extent a matter of definition as to whether you want to include the ability to play middlegames as a part of the ability to play openings or not.  I do agree with you that some openings are more likely to give rise to middlegame positions that are easier to play than others, and I guess that could be considered one aspect determining the relative simplicity of an opening.

On the other hand, I still believe though that many strong players have a fairly good handle on the closed Ruy Lopez to the extent that you don't see them go wrong in the early going all that often, at least not to the same extent as you see in the Sicilian or French.  It seems harder to pull off a quick win in the main lines of the Ruy Lopez against strong opponents.  There seem to be fewer traps that you can use to ensnare a reasonably well prepared opponent.  Maybe it is precisely because the complexity is strategic rather than tactical that one's efforts take longer to bear fruit.