MNb wrote on 08/06/11 at 14:56:03:


you know. I said this for years and years and years too (not because its too difficult but because of no interest in the Sicilian whatsoever). But i've tried it in a few Corr games. So careful with the word never.

OK then, let me mention something serious - very serious. There have been trivial answers enough in this thread (including mine).
An opening I have never played and highly probably never will play is the Najdorf as Black (and the Scheveningen too). That stuff is simply too difficult for me.

Albin counter-gambit (just throwing it out there since nobody mentioned it I think)
Baltic defence
Marshall defence (to the Queen's Gambit)

Oddly enough, both times Smyslov_Fan uses the term "QGD" in that post it was a minor mistake. The first time I assume he means "non-QG systems" and the second time he seems to be using it as an example of some unusual, irregular type of d4 opening. I guess it doesn't get much more wild and outrageous than the QGD.

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 08/05/11 at 21:54:11:



the thread is titled openings "you" would never play not that "have never been played or should never be played by anyone"

* Anything where you are relying on your opponent not to play accurately, eg. Elephant Gambit, S&M sorry S-M. 

* Any very sharp flank opening where you are hoping your opponent doesn't know it as well as you do.  

* Anything where you do something that your opponent can easily avoid, for example Owen's Defence, Anderson's Opening.   

* London System, Colle. 

I have no idea why anyone would play these last two systems, unless they want to bore their opponent into defeat (which is a real possibility). Avoiding opening theory, ok, but in non-sharp openings it is less important to know it exactly. I think there is some advantage to the Trompowsky or Veresov openings though.  

I asked someone in live chess why he used the Colle and he said something like that it's steady and reasonable, like himself and it suited him that way. I thought that if he wants to play like that, he should just play the Queen's Gambit, as it is generally-speaking a highly positional and steady opening, and so are many kp openings. I don't see any advantage at all to playing these two openings.     
   

Here are some off of the top of my head:

As white:
-Grob
-Orangutang
-1.b3
-Annoying 1.d4 systems such as the london, colle, trompowsky, blackmar-diemar, veresov and others where white does not move the c-pawn.
-king's gambit
-caro-kann fantasy variation
-french exchange
-danish gambit, scotch gambit, max lange attack or any of those gambit lines where black is at least equal
-any anti-sicilian apart from maybe the Bb5 sicilians
-exchange slav
-vienna opening
-french advance

As black:
-QGD orthodox
-englund gambit
-petroff
-latvian gambit
-elephant gambit
-scandinavian
-1...b5
-1...b6
-philidor defence
-sicilian four knights
-sicilian pin variation
-mainline french with 3...dxe4
-Lowenthal sicilian
-Czech benoni
-Gurgenidze system of the Caro-Kann

There are probably more that I would not play, but I cannot think of them right now.