Well 19 posts without being chastised is better than some have managed, Seraph (which is kind of a funny name considering your avatar, unless you mean that you are burning with anger).  But anyway most people will expect you to contribute with some moves/analysis, i.e. instead of "there's a line against that," "after 6.Bc4 the best line for Black is" and then actually supply some moves.  

And FYI (something that took me a long time to realize around here), many of the people (perhaps even most?) that post are correspondence players, so the sort of practical, good-for-an-over-the-board-try type stuff doesn't always go over super well here.  Not that I think 4...Ne4 is good for over-the-board, but you get my drift.

At the GM level, sure it's dubious. But at the class level, just about anything goes because someone will lose due to a tactical oversight more than anything else. Unless I am in the wrong forum and everyone here is a GM but me.

Seraph wrote on 02/27/14 at 21:00:04:

For one thing Black scores 30% with 6...a6.

Seraph wrote on 02/27/14 at 21:00:04:

For another thing Black got crushed in games like Pedzich-Przewoznik, POLch 1990 and Psakhis-Kobalija, Wien 1996. If you have a remedy for 7.a4 b6 8.Nh3 Bb7 9.Nf4 with d4-d5 always hanging in the air I'd very much like to know it.
After that you must address 7.Bb3 as well, White scoring 5/5 in my database (with some pretty strong players involved).

Seraph wrote on 02/26/14 at 12:30:44:

Black is in big trouble after 5.Nxe4 dxe4 6.Bc4.

I'm about the same strength as Isolated_Pawn.

I start all my games with 1.e4 and go for the 4N-Scotch.

Against the Sicilian I play open games with 6.Be2. I don't see the point of playing closed games, on my level. Even if my opponents are "booked up", they are mostly weak players like me, and don't really understand their favourite pet line. Even so when we get out of the book, our chess knowledge will decide the game. Not the opening.

Against 1.e4 I have taken up the Scandinavian with 2...Nf6. It's all-in-one defence against 1.e4, and the white player don't have so many (if any) options then play it.

I have also tried the French, which also is a sort of all-in-one defence against 1.e4, but I don't like the closed positions, which often arise.

Against 1.d4, 1.c4 and flank openings, I try to go for the QGD-Tarrasch. I often get a isolated pawn, which I don't like. But there are not so many other openings against 1.d4, where you will get a open game. One option is the Benko Gambit. I have looked at it, but feel the play gets too complicated for me.

Isolated_Pawn wrote on 02/26/14 at 01:08:44:

http://www.chessvideos.tv/wiki/index.php/Katar#Complete_1.e4_e5_Opening_Repertoi...
To be honest the production quality is terrible, this was all extemporaneous/unscripted, one-take-only, with zero do-overs and if I had realized it would live online in perpetuity with 40,000+ views I would have bothered to make it better.  You get what you pay for, though.

I am thoroughly confused because you came here saying you want an open attacking game, and now youre considering the French which is the least "open" of any possible defense to 1.e4.  So we are back at square one without any meaningful criteria really.

Of course there is nothing wrong with any major defense to 1.e4.  You have to trust yourself and follow your personal taste and intuition.  Whatever you are inclined to play, play that.  Personally i find 1.e4 e5 to be the simplest and most intuitively logical - i even made a hobbyist-level repertoire video series on it.  Others will find Sicilian Dragon or French to be more appealing.  To each his own, you know.  You are rated 1500 so you must have developed some opinions, tastes, preferences, or favorite players by now.  So trust yourself.  What looks fun to you?  Chess is about having fun.

Anyway, if you are inclined to play French i would suggest McDonald's truly excellent book, How to Play Against 1.e4.  This book is snappy, concise, and helpful.

Thanks.  There is some great advice here and it is along the lines of what I was thinking.  I have chosen not to play the Sveshnikov and not to play the Dutch.

Now I have a follow-up question.

There were comments that I may consider another line vs the French than the Monte Carlo exchange.  I had previously considered this line to be pretty much equivilent to the panov-botvinnik in the Caro Kann, but I understand now that it isn't quite that simple.  It was recommended that I pick up the classical French.

And, to be honest, I am not feeling so good with the Petroff as my defense to e4.  I mainly chose it because it is not 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 ... which allows white to have several third moves, the primary one (Bb5) being somewhat intimidating to me from a opening study perspective.  But, in testing games, I am just not identifying with the opening that well.  That's why I was looking into the sicilian really.

So, given that I want to learn the white side of the French, and I don't like my 1. e4 defense, would it make sense to pick up the French as black as well?  I understand the ideas behind it somewhat, and there is an overview in my Artur Yusupov training books.   

I have not tried playing with it but it does look awkward to me.  However, I admire Botvinnik and Korchnoi as two of my favorite players.   

So, do you think it is worth looking at?

Should I consider the Winawer line or the classical?