Tactical Opening for white after 1. e4 e5

Hello chess friends,

I'm looking for an opening for me, which should be of tactical nature. Since I normally start with 1. e4 and I want to engage in this opening as often as possible it would be best if it started after 1. e4 e5. Some information about me, I'm about 2000 rapid and I like open games, I don't like gambits too much, but if the material given is easily claimed back it doesn't matter to me.

I also have some additional questions:
1. Are the systematic tactical openings? I like the systematical approach some openings have, where exact move order doesn't matter. But immediately after all pieces are developed and I castled I like the game opening up so it gets very tactical and not positional game. Are these thing contradictory? I have the feeling tactical openings are often not systematic and more theoretical.

2. Currently I play often the Ruy Lopez, but it seems like it's also very strategical, although it happens from the Open game 1.e4 e5. Are there tactical variations white can usually force?

3. To not ask this again in the future, how can i measure the tactical degree of an opening? My understanding is, that if there are more open lines, and aggressive developed the more tactical ideas can take place.

Thanks for reading and additional thank you for taking the time to answer :)

What about The Mason-Keres Gambit ? 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Sc3 it's tactical.

@Jeb_al_Gloke
>2. Currently I play often the Ruy Lopez, but it seems like it's also very strategical, although it happens from the Open game 1.e4 e5. Are there tactical variations white can usually force?
I like tactical openings too
Maybe try Max lange attack and Anderssen's attack in Italian game ?

Vienna Gambit is a great aggressive opening with lots of traps. I have played it for quite a lot of time and almost never had a position where I was worse going into the middle game. To make things better, most people do not know how to play against the Vienna and subsequently, fall for some basic traps.

Here is a great study that features a lot of attacking lines, the main line, and the main ideas as well.

@ Jeb_al_Gloke said in #1:
> Hello chess friends,
>
> I'm looking for an opening for me, which should be of tactical nature. Since I normally start with 1. e4 and I want to engage in this opening as often as possible it would be best if it started after 1. e4 e5. Some information about me, I'm about 2000 rapid and I like open games, I don't like gambits too much, but if the material given is easily claimed back it doesn't matter to me.

I guess the Scotch game respects these criteria very much. There are some tactics in the Scotch, there are gambits, but you have the choice to not play them (Scotch gambit, Goring gambit, Nakhmanson gambit...).

> 1. Are the systematic tactical openings? I like the systematical approach some openings have, where exact move order doesn't matter. But immediately after all pieces are developed and I castled I like the game opening up so it gets very tactical and not positional game. Are these thing contradictory? I have the feeling tactical openings are often not systematic and more theoretical.
-It can transpose to some aggressive choices for White (Nakhmanson, Max Lange attack...), and the move order doesn't matter ( 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d4 exd4 5. O-O Nxe4 is the same as 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 exd4 4. Bc4 Nf6 5. O-O Nxe4)

>3. To not ask this again in the future, how can i measure the tactical degree of an opening? My understanding is, that if there are more open lines, and aggressive developed the more tactical ideas can take place.
Tactical -> more open lines -> more pawns gambitted.

@Jeb_al_Gloke said in #1:

>
> 3. To not ask this again in the future, how can i measure the tactical degree of an opening? My understanding is, that if there are more open lines, and aggressive developed the more tactical ideas can take place.

I'm never quite sure about "tactical" as a term, but if you like like attacking then you normally want openings where the other side has accepted a bit of a deficit in space or development in exchange for something else (generally a good structure for the endgame). The French or the Sicilian or the Pirc fit this pattern, for example. Unfortunately, it's basically up to your opponent to decide whether they want to go into that - e5 is the "no, I want to keep pace in space and development actually" option, so it's hard to force an early attack without playing a gambit or something totally unsound. It's noticeable that even legendary attacking players like Tal, Nezhmetdinov, Kasparov and Shirov used the Ruy Lopez as their main weapon against e5.

That said, if you like open positions then the Scotch is a good shout. Definitely less shuffling around than the Closed Ruy and a good chance of some total madness if the opponent plays ball and goes into the Mieses Variation...

@Jeb_al_Gloke said in #1:
>I like the systematical approach some openings have, where exact move order doesn't matter. But immediately after all pieces are developed and I castled I like the game opening up so it gets very tactical and not positional game. Are these things contradictory?

Yes. :)

Nothing is more tactical than playing The King's Gambit!

Scotch Gambit and Evans Gambit are fun. But since you don't like gambits, I'd recommend the Scotch Game. The main lines are boring to me, so I play stuff like the Potter variation etc. I aim for a setup similar to the English/Yugoslav Attack with opposite side castling. Here's a great free course that will get you started if you want.
www.chessable.com/short-sweet-scotch-game/course/5479/

Check out my game with a queen sac in the Potter Variation of the Scotch.

In the Alapin, White plays 2. Ne2 ...

People usually aren't prepared for what develops after that ...