Sound Openings

Every second post in this forum is someone coming around asking what's the most "aggressive" or "(counter)attacking" opening they can play.  It amuses me, because typically that's not really what they're looking for.  Hardly anyone *really* plays the Latvian Gambit as their primary reply to e4, for instance -- it's aggressive to the point of recklessness.

Just once, I'd like to hear a discussion going the other way -- what, in your opinion, are the most positionally sound openings?  That doesn't equate to "passive" -- an extremely passive opening is not very sound, IMO.  But if I was going to build a repertoire with the object of consistently emerging from the opening with a good game, what would you think would serve that approach best?

I think you are right. I think it is a tendency of beginners to want to attack at all times. Unfortunately, we (yes, I include myself) don't often know how to properly use the initiative, and end up with a bogged down attack, and a weak position, waiting to be crushed.

I actually think beginners are better of picking solid defensive positions. I really enjoy playing the French for that reason. At my level, I often get blitzed by white, which the sound nature of the defense can handle, then I have an easy counter against an overextended position. It is not as dependent on my playing perfectly, as a wild attack is.

I disagree. At the beginner level, the game is usually wilder and decided by use of tactics. Put a beginner into a defensive position, and they will simply curl up into a ball and whimper, not knowing how to make any progress- at best they will simply blow the defensive position wide open, going into- you guessed it- an attack.

Again, though, I'm not implying "defensive".  The French, for instance, is a pretty defensive, counterpunching opening... but I don't think I'd call some of those positions in the Winawer as the most sound you can find.

One opening I'm thinking of, for instance, is the Nimzo-Indian.  You may not get a lot of quick knockouts; no one would really describe it as a counter-attack.  But on the other hand, your position is pretty solid as well, no one's going to dispute the soundness of the opening.  Just solid, a great way to reach a good game.

Ok, well, the openings most likely to do that are presumably the d-pawn openings... a slow, positional game, so most of them can certainly be described as 'solid'- there is usually a major lack of tactics involved in the beginning stages.

Another candidate I'd put forward is 1. f4 d5 (obviously not e5 with one of the scariest attacks I've ever seen) which, in my games at least, leads to slow, solid play, and I usually reach a very playable middlegame- myself being in the 1700s, I can draw mid-1800s with 1. f4 d5 pretty simply.

You're right. That's why there is more to learn in how to play a defensive position properly than learning some crazy junkyard dog gambit.

Against d4: Slav defence or Nimzo Indian/queen's indian.
Against e4: (mainline) Ruy Lopez, Caro-Kann, French defense - something in that direction.

As white I'd say the Reti opening is the best choice.

Yes, but until they improve tactically, stop hanging pieces, start seeing discovered checks, they cannot improve strategically. In essence, giving them these 'solid' lines is just jumping a step too far on the development staircase- they'll topple and fall.

(Marks out of 10 for the metaphor? )

I have to agree with Nytik, tactics is said to be 99% of chess and the open games is where that happens. First learn tactics then learn everything else. Seeing how an attack can happen quickly and unexpectedly can clue you in on the dangers that might be lurking in what looks like a decent or even good position. If you know the attack, then you can spot it better; hopefully you can defend it better too. I am not talking about just giving up the Queen and just trying to blow up the position. However, a good attack with chances to win is definite the way to go for a beginner.

Surely it can't be true that chess is 99% tactics, and also they only happen in open games? I mean the open games are like 10% of chess...

Tactics arise in every opening variation.

The main problem with the idea of picking solid lines is that there isn't really such a defence against 1.e4. The closest is probably the Caro-Kann, but even there, White has some pretty sharp weapons against it. Perhaps 1...e5, but then there are plenty of tricky gambit lines (and overly boring lines like the Piannisimo with Nc3).

Actually, I think I'd go for a Sicilian. Accelerated Dragon in the unlikely case that white plays 2.Nf3 and 3.d4, and the antis are mostly pretty solid for black.

By the way - all positional play (or strategy or however you may call it) is based on tactics.

Here's my opinion, assuming by "sound" you mean "quiet":

Against e4: Caro-Kann Defense

Against d4: Orthodox Queen's Gambit Declined

Against c4: Symmetrical English

Against f4: Double Duck Defense

I would say, against e4 as black, najdorf sicilian is a good one

The Najdorf is super sharp and tactical. The OP asked for something solid... 16 years ago.

Well, 16 years ago, and today, you can't get much more solid than the Petroff, and it comes with some bite for Black as well, unlike having to deal with the "Spanish Torture".

The Queens Indian Defence is very solid, but it is very difficult to enjoy playing it.

when one plays 1. Nf3 and slams down the knight, that's the most "sound" opening.

seriously:

with white, just about anything. Just play classical chess (eg Ruy, Queens Gambit, not overly aggressive against Pirc, Sicilian or KID, Grunfeld etc)
with black: Slav and maybe Caro

For players of the White pieces who favour 1. e4, I'd say the Bishop's Opening is extraordinarily sound. As long as one avoids going off into "Here Be Dragons" country with nineteenth-century gambits, that is. For Black, mayhap the Lion/Old Indian complex?

I mean the mainline of anything is pretty sound