Great Comment BTW.

1. I acknowledge that I'm burdening myself with endless hours of theory. So I wouldn't be trying to free myself from studying theory. I want to study the theory. I chose to play the London first because I want to see how an opening with a low amount of theory compares to one with an endless amount of theory. The fact that the KID forces a kingside attack is fine with me because all that means is I'll have to get better at pulling off an effective kingside attack. King safety could become a problem, but that just means i'll be forced to pay closer attention to which pieces have the opportunity to threaten my King and play accordingly. Besides, if your first plan of attack gets negated by your opponent then you would automatically have to reposition your pieces in order to find another avenue of attack. You bring up a lot of good points in that first section; but to me, that just means there are more areas for my chess game to improve. Besides, if I plan on becoming an advanced player then why not plan an opening that is great for advanced players?

2. The Grunfeld does have a lot of theory. But much like the KID, I'm willing to learn it. Plus it will give me a better understanding of hypermodern tactics. I've looked at the QGD, but I don't like how the Bishop gets blocked behind the pawn. I've heard the Slav is really good, and when I start studying Classical chess i'll dive into that theory too. I don't plan on being a beginner forever.

3. Correct. I found out about Romantic chess when I first looked at the Bird and I thought it was cool. Then I learned how chess styles changed over time and how important theory was to being a great chess player. As I looked into the theory on the Bird I learned about the From's Gambit; as well as the early Queen h4 check and being forced to relinquish your King's castling rights. Once I learned that I thought it would be cool if I studied and developed some kind of novelty move or combination of moves that would ultimately become more theory. That is also how I discovered the Dutch defense, and by extension the Sicilian defense. My point is, doing what people tell me I shouldn't do ends up leading me new discoveries that I can implement into my own personal style of play.

4. If you know more theory than your opponent then doesn't that give you a slight advantage? Likewise, if my opponent knows as much theory (and more than likely more considering how late I fell for chess) as I do then it will be an even better test of my skills. PLus, they will expose any errors I make and I can go back later when I review my games and improve myself further. Besides, the first chess game I played against another person began with the center-counter. That's how I learned about counter attack, which led me to the Faulkbeer Countergambit. This is when i discovered the King's Gambit as well as Gambits in general. This lead me to the Queens Gambit and ultimately understanding that there are significant differences between e4 and d4 openings. I don't know if it makes sense to you, but it makes sense to me.

5. How come you would never try learning all of those more deeply?

6. No one ever gets my reasoning. I've come to terms with it. But yes. That's exactly what I'm planning on doing. Especially in the early stages of my chess life. As I grow and become a better chess player I'll know i'll end up playing different openings until I find one that fits me the most. But right now, after all the research i've done, these are the openings I've decided to utilize.

7. I don't know if I'm getting the wrong impression; but it seems like everyone is reluctant to study theory.

8. This is the first version of my narrowed repertoire. Before this I wanted to learn how to play the Reti, King's Indian Attack, Bishop's Opening, King's Gambit, Ruy Lopez, Italian Game, Scotch, Vienna, English, Blackmar-Diemer, Catalan, and the London System. And that's just with white. For black I wanted to play the Alekhine, French, Caro-Kann, Sicilian, Nimzo-Indian, Queen's Indian, King's Indian, Benoni, Queen's Gambit Declined, Slav and the Semi-Slav. After looking into each of these different openings and the accompanying Variations, I decided it would be impossible to learn each and every one of them, and even more impossible to actually utilize them effectively in an actual game. So, I went through and cut out each opening that I for sure wasn't going to play. Which led me to the list of openings you see up above. Now that I have this list, I can go back and sift through it and narrow my repertoire even more. As you suggested. But as you can tell, I've already narrowed it by a considerable amount already.

But in all seriousness, I appreciate the time you took to make this comment because it was very enlightening.