Pete Tamburro says you should play variations you like. I think this is very important at amateur level.

For example the QGD is one of the "best" openings, but if you don't like playing it, you should not.

In his book Openings for Amateurs, Tim Tamburro writes this about meeting the Sicilian (amateurs with limit time for opening studies):
1. Your opening system cannot require a lot of memorization. You should not play the open Sicilian.
2. Follow general principles so you can get to a playable game. Suggestions: Closed system, Alapin (c3), Rossolimo or Hungarian.
3. The playable game that you reach must be one that you are comfortable with. Select a variation you like.
4. Play solid and aggressive. All variations above fits this requirement.
5. A system which give you comfort and makes your opponent uncomfortable.
6. Understand the underlying pawn structure and how to play the ending resulting from them.
7. Pick a system you can grow with. All suggested lines have been played by GM:s and even world champions.

In his book Tim Tamburro gives suggestions and examples for most common opening as white and black.

As I said in my previous posting, Tamburro's book is the best and most valuable opening book I have read about opening play. When you have picked a variation you like from the game examples, you can buy more specialized books.

I'm afraid not GeneM, your whole post is inaccurate or false.

Probably many of the recommendations given in this thread are good, but which will you go pick?

I have looked in most of the repertoire books written by well known authors, but have not liked any of these until I found: "Opening for Amateurs" by Pete Tamburro.

He suggest you to play what you feel comfortable with. And to choose sound variations which do not require lot of theory, but if you want and have the time, can be expanded to major line variations.

It feels like my quest for an opening repertoire is ended for a while. I recommend this book for any below 1800.

Se also: http://www.amazon.com/Openings-Amateurs-Pete-Tamburro/dp/1936277506/ref=sr_1_1?i...

Although I would make one adjustment and go for the Kalishnikov over the Svesh.

Sorry for not reading all the posts above (it was a bit too much for me). So sorry if I end up repeating others.

Just joined to underline what Ericthe Red and Othy suggest above: follow your instincts and play the Sicilian as Black.

It is the same problem with playing the Open Sicilian as White now or later on (I agree with others that it is better to start now):
Playing the Sicilian as Black at your level you will face a lot of dangerous Anti-Sicilians (the Closed, the Alapin-c3, the Bb5 lines, the Grand Prix  to name the most important ones). So better start learning these now, than having to learn the Sicilian and the Anti-Sicilians at one go, say when you reach 1800.

If you have easy access to books then there is a small book named "How to play the sicilian defence" (old book published by Batsford) - it helped me to quickly get a feeling of all the main Sicilians (has old but very thematic games). This is for deciding which main line Sicilian to use (e.g. Sveshnikov) - or you could consult a strong player with experience in the Sicilian.

I will also take some time here to mention my personal feeling about the main Sics:
- Najdorf (pluses: you will be exposed to many different positions, it is very easy in the future to alter your lines if needed, you can play it based on ideas & plans / minuses: when you become a stronger player you will need to invest time to learn specific lines).
- Dragon (pluses: very nice opening / minuses: you get exposed to limited amount of positions)
- Accelerated Dragon (pluses: a very sound & solid opening / minuses: tends to be drawish, facing the Maroczy Bind (e4 & c4 pawns) may not be to your taste)
- Taimanov (pluses: the perfect choice imo, sound & can become positional. you can choose your move order to avoid certain anti-sicilians / minuses: I cannot find any, maybe that the Najdorf is sharper if you need to win)
- Classical (pluses: can transpose to many other lines in the future, i.e. you may replace some of your Najdorf lines with Classical lines, you can choose your move order to avoid certain anti-sicilians / minuses: some lines like the Richter-Rauzer (Bg5) are very dangerous for Black and need a lot of preparation imo).
- Sveshnikov (pluses: sound, can play for a win / minuses: especially in the positional line I cannot see how Black can play for a win, White's can easily side-step the Sveshnikov via 3. Nc3, also 3. Bb5 is a strong anti-Sicilian)
- Scheveningen, Kalashnikov, Kan and some other lines are interesting to discuss but I say you decide first on the above and then do some refinement in your decision making

If you insist on the Sveshnikov I have no great experience, but I was preparing as White recently against it and checked a few lines and I must admit that "The Easiest Sicilian" is a very interesting book and its format will help you a lot (has 3 sections: 1st gives plans & ideas / 2nd gives concrete lines / 3rd cites complete games). You can read only the 1st parts for the time being and when you start playing the Svesh you may come back to the book to consult parts 2 & 3 depending on the lines played in your games. That reduces the workload so that you can focus on the Anti-Sicilians (very important imo!).

But if you like the Petroff I do not object as it is an interesting opening leading to open positions. But imo it starts becoming a good drawing weapon only after you become a really strong player first! (say 2200+).

I'll somewhat randomly throw in the following.  When I was rated around the same as the OP, I played the Classical French (which the OP was considering, until he was persuaded otherwise by watching two minutes of a video -- I'll never understand such things).  I picked it up from a local player who was something of a model for me, and studied the material on it in a couple of books (this was at a time of more generalized opening works -- certainly no Multi-Volume Grandmaster Repertoire back then).  In the only game I can readily recall with 4. Bg5 Be7 5. e5 Nfd7 6. Bxe7, I was faced with a completely misguided (but maybe very attractive to C-players) idea of Nb5-d6.

Against the Alekhine-Chatard I played 6...c5 (which was perhaps the main move at the time, but later seemed to go out of favor).  One of the possible replies, 7. Nb5, was supposed to lead to complications perhaps ending in a perpetual.  But after 7...f6 ("!"), White was supposed to avoid 8. ef Nxf6, with "an excellent position" for Black.

I was brought back to that decades-old stuff today ...

I'm going to try and re-focus the discussion back on the OP. Isolated Pawn, it looks like you have done everything as you should up to this point in your chess education. You approached the crowd here in this forum with a clear understanding of the type of player you are, what your goals are, and a very sensible plan for pursuing those goals. I commend you.

As the thread has gone on and you seem to have done a bit of research it appears to me that you have become caught up in some of the philosophical channels of opening selection. There are serious pitfalls when it comes to amateur theorizing about openings, and you can spend the next 10 years stuck in this process of debating and rationalizing your opening choices. Nothing will hold you back from gaining the next 500 rating points than getting stuck in these opening rationales.

Again, I would say that you have a VERY good outlook and plan set forth from the beginning of this thread. The most important thing is to trust your initial instincts and proceed in them confidently. The added confidence will help you over the board as well.

You can play quite literally ANY set of main line openings and reach 2000+ on your middlegame and endgame ability alone. It is not worth getting bogged down. That all said, here are my suggestions based on your instinctive opening proposals:

White 1.e4

1...e5: Four Knights Scotch is perfectly playable, but doesn't allow for much of an aggressive style. I suspect you will become annoyed with the positions you get pretty quickly. Following your instincts would mean giving it a go and seeing. Personally, I think the regular Scotch would be a good alternative. Not drastically changing the nature of the game, but giving you more aggressive options that are still sound and skipping learning third move side lines in the Three Knights.. In my experience amateur players are a bit frustrated by the Scotch. Try following some model high-level players and then learn as you go. Against the Petroff I think 3.d4 is worth learning, or you can play 3.Nc3 and transpose back into the Four Knights Scotch.

1...c5: Stick with the Open Sicilians. The longer you wait the more difficult it is, so I don't think it's worth starting out with lines like the c3-Sicilian. Start by playing simply and classically, e4, Nf3, d4, Nxd4, Nc3, Be2, Be3, with ideas like 0-0 and f4. Then learn specific lines as you go and play games. This gives you a solid foundation and avoids overwhelming you with theory.

1...c6: Exchange Panove-Botvinnik. This is your instincts, is perfectly alive and playable, and will give you important experience in the IQP positions. The sooner you expose yourself to these the better for your chess education. It'll only be more difficult to do once you're higher rated.

1...e6: This is where some of the richest chess instruction can take place. Again, your instincts are perfectly reasonable and it might be best just to follow them. EricTheRed makes some good points, but there could still be a lot of value in you gaining the experience in those positions and learning from them when opponents start to pose you real challenges. The Advance French is also a great suggestion and is one of the best places to learn about closed pawn centers. The Classical is also a great variation, and another one where the sooner you can convince yourself to dive into it the easier it will be to learn. My best advice is not to worry too much about specifics when making your decision. Trust your instincts, choose one and stick with it. You won't truly learn anything about yourself in any of them until you've played a good dozen serious games in them with serious follow-up study to understand them. Learn and research after you've played. There are a lot of hidden nuances that you can't possibly expect to pick up on from a few blitz games. Don't judge them based on whether or not you "have a feel" after a couple casual outings.

1...Others: Don't even worry about them until you've encountered them, then begin the study based on your experiences. My best advice when the time does come is not to be intimidated by them and choose the main variations.

Black

1.e4: I feel this is the most important place to trust your initial instincts and get away from the rationalizing. Play the Sicilian, all the way. You WILL want it to be a part of your repertoire at some point. If you wait until you are already 2000 it WILL be a pain in the butt to learn, because you'll be afraid of the depth of theory everywhere. Start the process as soon as possible where you will be beating your peers in the middle and endgames even if you slip up the opening. You will be glad to have the dynamism in your positions later. Any tactical line emphasizing clear plans with active piece play will work. The Dragon, the Accelerated Dragon and the Raetsky line are all prime candidates and could all carry you straight to 2400+ if you specialize in them.

The Petroff is another opening with a lot of nuance that you won't pick up your first times playing, so I still think it's a good candidate. But the Sicilian has a lot more return on investment. I don't recommend the Berlin. While it's a great opening, you can be doing better things with your time right now than learning to play against the 5.Re1 lines and trying to understand the complexities of the Berlin Wall endgames. The French is also a great opening, but I think your consideration of it is caught up in the rationalizing and philosophizing your opening selections and it won't prove to be worth the time in the long run. It's an easy opening to learn later in your career, so don't rush to play it for what you might learn now.

My own bit of rationalizing now: If you assume that you'll one day switch from one opening to another, starting in the Sicilian and years later learning the French will be easier and better for your play than starting in the French and years later learning the Sicilian. Stick with your initial instincts.

1.d4: Anything is playable and will remain playable until at least the 2000 level. Again I suggest sticking with your instincts. The Tarrasch is a good opening, clear plans, combines tactical and positional elements well with active and natural piece play. I would recommend starting here. The Dutch is an opening of learning positional exceptions and how to effectively break the rules of principled opening play. It's playable and tricky, but there will also be many more painful losses involved in the learning process. I think completing your education of primary principles is more important first. Remember, these principles don't stop at "bring your pieces to the center" and "castle early" and the other half-dozen basic opening rules. There are layers of understanding to them that run deep. As a 2100 player I am still discovering new intricacies about them. I suggest you keep at it with the Tarrasch.