Alapin's opening (1. e4 e5 2. Ne2) - Playable, but a bit artificial. Alapin was a funny guy. He also invented the line 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Bb4?!
Albin countergambit (1. d4 d5 2. c4 e5) - Despite getting an OK position against a GM the only time I ever used it, I don't like this opening much. While it has not been refuted, I think it is a difficult line for Black.
Anderssen's opening (1. a3) - While it might appear absurd, it is in fact quite good, since it is a useful transpositional device. This is what happened the last time I played it:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=109775
Damiano defense (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f6) - Bad, but just playable (3.Nxe5 Qe7!), at least in 5-minute games and if you don't mind suffering a bit.
Elephant gambit/QP counter-gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d5) - A Danish Gambit with a tempo less? Thanks, but no thanks
Ruy Lopez (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5) - That's a joke, right? According to Lasker, you can't get a true positional understanding before you have used this opening. I think he was right.
Nimzovich defense (1. e4 Nc6) Nothing wrong with this, as long as you stick to reasonable moves, and contrary to Nimzowitsch himself gets way too clever.
Polish defense (1. d4 b5)- Since 1.e4 a6 2.d4 b5 has proven good enough to beat Karpov, it can't really be that bad. And also considering my liking for most things Polish, I just have to consider this a good opening...
Austrian defense/Symmetrical defense (1. d4 d5 2. c4 c5) - A very bad line. Anyone want to try it against me?
Bird's opening (1. f4) - A Dutch with an extra move can't be bad. But study From's gambit (1...e5) before you play it. Unless you are happy with transposing into King's Gambit, that is.
Alexandre gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 f5) - As far as I know, this is not refuted, but I would surely never play it.
Mieses opening (1. d3) - Usually this will result in a King's Indian Attack, which is indeed good. So
for this one.
Fried fox defense (1. e4 f6 2. d4 Kf7) - Yeah right.
Funny name, though.
Parham attack (1. e4 e5 2. Qh5) - Not as bad as it looks. From time to time used by cheeky young GMs. But White has better second moves.
Queen's gambit declined (1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6) - See Ruy Lopez above.
Gedult's opening (1. f3) - Silly, but not as bad as 1.g4.
Evans gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. b4) - This is something I really would recommend on club level. Players below about 1600 simply have no clue about how to defend against it. As for the correctness of this gambit, I think it has not been refuted, but a pawn is a pawn...
Accelerated dragon (1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 g6) - See Ruy Lopez and QGD above. And throw in a few games by Petrosian and Larsen as well.
Hungarian defense (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Be7) - Passive but solid.
Blackburne Shilling gambit (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nd4) - Bad. 4.Nxd4, 4.0-0 and 4.c3 all look good. Perhaps even 4.Nxe5!?, but that is more complicated.
French defense, Steintz attack (1. e4 e6 2. e5) - Playable, but white has better lines against the French.You might want to examine another line invented by Bird; 1.e4 e6 2.Bb5!?, or better the patent of the Russian genius Mikhail Chigorin 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2! see his match games against Tarrasch.
Sicilian defense, Nimzovich variation (1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nf6) - An interesting line, even if I am not fond of it.
Grob's attack (1. g4) - Easily the worst opening move. UUU (Unmotivated, ugly and useless).
Grau defense (1. d4 d5 2. c4 Bf5) - Despite a couple of Shirov games I don't believe in this line. I find 3.Qb3 to be to embarrasing for comfort, and 3.cxd5 Bxb1. 4.Qa4+c6 5.dxc6 is also good. 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Bf5 is not so bad, though.
