If he also castles queenside then it's balanced again. Then you both have the same pawn structure, both castled in the same direction, so it's balanced.

That's never actually happened to me. My opponents always bring out their king side pieces and sometimes their queen's knight, then castle on the king side. Since they usually castle before me, it would be easy for me to make a point of castling on the opposite side if they did choose to castle queen side instead.

Also, this strategy works pretty well no matter which side you're playing. It probably loses a tempo along the way if you force the opposite side castling as white, but at the class level, it still works. In a relatively quiet opening like this, that extra tempo won't give your opponent time to launch a killer attack or anything. This isn't exactly the king's gambit.

--Fromper

I have some experience with the Exchange French; though obviously not with all lines that are possible. What I have seen is that when white commits himself in any way, black equalizes, or worse!
When white doesn't play c4, in theory he has no chance of winning against a black player who knows what he's doing. Having to move first after the exchange hurts white more than it helps.
It is dull (the central tension is released prematurely). Regardless of where both parties castle and where the pieces are placed.

In fact, the exchange variation is why I would never ever play the French defense. That and that Richelieu bishop in black's camp. I don't have any fun in the Exchange French, with either side. Besides, I can defend the Ruy Lopez. I can play the Caro-Kann, whose Exchange line does imbalance the pawns and where the bishop can get out. I can play the Alekhine when I'm in a frisky mood.

Im a sicilian Najdorf player and my knowledge of 1.e4 e5 as black is pretty naff. But, since you play KG as white (the same as myself! ;-) perhaps the Elephant or Latvian Gamits may appeal to you?! Ok, NCO gives advantage to White in all lines or evaluates the position unclear. Nonetheless, this is not to be the end to these openings. I gather if your a beginner / Intermediate player your opponents are not gonna know these lines that well (if at all anywayz). Be realistic... if they did know them, they wouldnt be beginners also.
You only have too look at A.Morozevich to learn that 'weak' openings can used effectivly. I mean, if you like the position, play it regardless of how NCO (etc) evaluates them. I would rather play a position i was happy with or familiar with even if it was evaluated as slightly worse, than play another position i did not know or understand just because it is evaluated (by someone else!) as better.

One may argue that, using such openings against stronger players you might lose... well, challange that idea and see before you believe.

The Schliemann is worth a punt as an agressive opening against the Lopez (3 .. f5): check out Timman - Speelman in the Candidates (1980??) for a high level handling of it.

Thanks everyone! I really appreciate your feedback, it has definetely steered me in a direction of study.

I've found aggresive tactics early on have leveled the playing field a bit against me and somewhat better players. For one thing we quickly find ourselves in unfamiliar territory. I find I have much more practice being in unfamiliar territory than most lol. (In the Valley of the Blind the one-eyed man is king as it were)

Thanks again, I'll be digesting this material for some time to come ...

If I may be so bold as to chime in with two rather late cents:

For the beginner/intermediate, it seems to me that what you want is a positions that allow you active play without burning your positional bridges. Meaning no disrespect to the other posters, but something like the Schliemann does the later too much, in my opinion, to be a serious weapon.

(I'd also like to add that, when playing online, it's important not to play gimmicky defenses. I've found my on-line opponents to be much more booked-up than similarly-skilled over-the-board players. I suspect that many people don't consider playing with an opening book on their lap to be cheating - but whatever the reason, you need to not expect much return for "trappy" play in the opening online.)

Against 1.e4, the open Ruy Lopez may be what you're looking for. It avoids the passivity of the main line closed defenses and the anti-Marshalls, yet is based on solid opening principles. The Dilworth Variation will give you positions with unbalanced material which give black lots of opportunities to out-tactic his opponents, and while there are a few prepared sacrifices you need to be aware of, generally, you'll get a chance to play for the win most of the time.

Against 1.d4, the Tarrasch defense gives you a chance to avoid your typical cramped QGD positions (many of which are theoretically equal, but much easier to play for white; white scores very well from them at lower levels), but also gives you a firmer foothold in the center than you'll see in the KID or Grunfeld. Furthermore, at your level, your opponents will probably lack the technique to properly exploit the IQP even if you screw up your opening or middlegame and find yourself in a bad IQP ending (which is what happens when you get outplayed in the tarrasch).

Both of these choices have a few things going for them:

1) They're relatively easy to play. You need to do some homework learning them, but you should be fine. Compared to, say, the french, sicilian, or KID these openings are VERY easy to learn. (I recommend Flear's book on the Open Ruy, and Aagard and Lund's "Meeting 1.d4" on the Tarrasch).

2) They emphasize active piece play, which should give you excellent opportunities to practice your attacking skills. This also means they give you excellent practical chances at the class level where attacking is more important than defending.

3) They're relatively uncommon, meaning your opponents are not likely to be up on the latest theory and will probably be less familiar with the primary middlegame themes than you are.

4) They're based on solid, fundamental opening principles, which means they're unlikely to be busted and are good "learning openings" for the developing player.

5) They're lifetime weapons. Both are used successfully up to the grandmaster level, and have appeared in world championship matches. While you may later decide you want to pick of the sicilian or the grunfeld (everybody does, at some point) but you'll always have these in your back pocket, no matter how strong you get, if your round 1 opponent busts your sicilian and you know you're behind on the latest theory, you'll be able to play these openings with confidence. Forever.

Fair comment on the Open Lopez, I've played it myself online recently with 'diddly squat' theoretical knowledge other a vague recollection of some Karpov-Korchnoi games. Although, I wouldn't dismiss the Schliemann on positional grounds.

The Archangel line (an early ... Bc5 in the Lopez) has also been experiencing a resurgence: what could be more aggressive than hitting direct at f2!. Check out some of the current Candidates matches for the most recent games.

A few Kasparov games from the early 80's will show you how to play the QG Tarrasch.

I've dabbled with the archangelsk. Unfortunately, right now I feel like there are a couple of main-line positions which are a little too favorable for white (in particular the lines with a4, axb5, and Na3).

I find the Tarrasch defence is better accompanied by the French defence, when e4 is played. I'm not so sure it works well with d4.