Your opinion of this repertoire. John Emms Attacking with e4

http://www.biddytarot.com/tarot-card-meanings/minor-arcana/suit-of-swords/five-of-swords/

"the Five of Swords is a card representing ambition but in the negative sense. Too much ambition without regard to the consequences to yourself or others results ultimately in a situation of loss for everyone."

"See the cheating icon at the right of their name"

Is this the icon for closed count. Closed Count is cheating? Perhaps Five Swords close his count and go to other page or leave chess or earn a CM or NM title and open a new count with his name etc. 

When I review his games in the base. I don't find a pattern of cheating. Five Swords lose some games against lower rateds and others. 

Long winded post but I found this repertoire interesting... however there are some problems with it, so I'm writing down my thoughts as they come to me....

1. closed sicilian - As a sicilian player - if you want to avoid the open lines, maybe because you don't play the sicilian... I do think the closed is one of the best options. There are some lines with b3 I like too, but as far as anti-sicilians go the closed is one of the best.

However, as a sicilian player I don't fear this, I'm actually happy when I see it because I love the 2... e6 lines. Though you can transpose those back into the open if you want... that kind of undermines the point of your repertoire though, and it's also a concession against the Kan. But I couldn't really recommend this, what I fear are specific lines in the open sicilian...

If you want a phenomenal repertoire against the sicilian look up Anish Giris course on chessable. Pretty much every line I don't want to face in any given sicilian is the very line he chooses in that repertoire. 
The only thing I'd play differently than Anish is against the old sicilian (2. Nc6) I like Jan Gustafsonn's suggestion of briefly transposing into the closed sicilian via 3. Nc3, instead of playing the immediate 3. d4. Next move you usually transpose back into the open lines with 4. d4, but this maneuver allows you to avoid the lowenthall and sveshnikov. However, you have to face 3... e5 instead - a specific line in the closed sicilian which is objectively about the same as the sveshnikov in terms of its engine eval. Seems like a worthy tradeoff to me. And then against the four knights I play the exchange rather than the sveshnikov transposition. But other than that I think Anish's recommendations are the way to go.

Learning the open lines is alot of theory yes, but the actual winrates speak for themselves - if open sicilian players were struggling we'd see that, what we actually see are amazing winrates for white in most variations, assuming you know which lines to play.

2. the bishops opening - I've just recently been picking up the guioco piano... I actually really like this suggestion. Looks like a cool way of reaching italian setups which can also be synthesized with the Vienna, circumventing the petrov. Very cool, probably will steal it

3. KIA vs the French - it's a cool idea but with e4 early the lines don't really work out as elegantly as they do in the reti. For getting the french player out of book I think I prefer 2. b3, the problematic piece in the french structure is usually the darksquare bishop, and b3 is objectively better in addition to being more atypical. I'm kind of torn at the moment between playing the tarrasch and playing 2. b3. It's very hard to get the french player out of book without compromising something.

4. accelerated panov vs. caro-kann - one of my preferred lines against the caro-kann, it's a good way of avoiding theory but it's also very solid, good line.

5. pirc 150 attack - it's a great position for white, black has some difficulties undermining the center and his kingside is under attack... but I still prefer the Byrne pirc to this, at club level the early e5 or h4 pushes in the Byrne are very crushing.

6. modern 150 attack - the way you face the modern probably depends on how you play against the pirc. I'm less satisfied with the Bg5 lines against the modern. I don't think you'll go wrong with the 150 attack, it's not as theoretical as something like the pseudo-Austrian... and it also is reminiscent of the sicilian dragon, which will work to equalize the experience differential in the lines... a very good thing against the modern player. But I haven't yet found a line I'm really satisfied with yet which combines with the Byrne...

7. closed Scandinavian - it's a great option on multiple levels. For starters, this is a critical line in the Van Geet and knowing it will allow you to experiment with that opening. Combined with the Closed Sicilian you already have the two most challenging lines against the Van Geet taken care of. So that's nice, now you can just mess around with the unique lines.

Overall, based on this repertoire, I almost want to say you should just be playing the Van Geet. But anyway...

Closed Scandi is a great line, but the problem I see in this repertoire is... it can transpose to the caro-kann and French, but variations which the author isn't playing. So that's kind of problematic. Given the rest of this repertoire you should probably just stick with the mainline scandi.

8. Alekhine, exchange variation - I would rather try to transpose into the Vienna. With your bishops opening you already have the falkbeer setup in the Vienna covered via 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4 Nf6 3. Nc3, you also have the other lines black can player covered - Scandinavian Bogoljubov can be reached via the Closed Scandi (assuming you go that route... if not just learn it), and Pirc is already covered. So really no reason to play the Alekhine exchange

Firstly, you're confused here, since I'm not making a broad point about the KIA in the Reti vs the KIA against e6 per se, but I'm comparing the KIA against e6 reached via either the reti move order or the 1. e4 move order. If you had read more carefully or possibly asked a question before jumping at the first opportunity to flex you would have saved us both alot of time.

Comparing 1. e4 e6 vs. 1. Nf3 e6:

Via 1. e4 e6 you must play Nbd2 early on, and this is sub-optimal and restrictive... leela scores it about -0.02. This becomes relevant in some of blacks sidelines or if you want to diverge into some of the newer KIA lines that engines prefer to the old line -

The KIA via 1. Nf3 e6 is about +0.06, better because you do not need Nbd2 early on, and you can even forego playing it in some lines, or play Bf4 before playing it:

I'd rather reach it via Nf3. But for me the real issue with KIA vs the french is if I'm going to concede the significant objective advantage white has against the french defense I'd rather do it playing some obscure line the opponent probably has almost never seen, like 2. b3. I'd rather not do it via playing some other theoretical line like the KIA which black probably faces via the Reti anyway. Especially when both lines have approximately the same objective value.

But regarding your point - I try to avoid pie-in-the-sky theorizing about chess, i.e. going on about the "french bishop" or whatever nonsense.... (that bishop can go to Bb7 or Ba6, btw - challenging whites LSB along the diagonal - doesn't seem exactly comparable to the colle... the pawn structure is also different for white). I much prefer concrete analysis of some actual position vs. another. It's only in examining the entirety of a position that you can account for all the different tradeoffs and factors that chess is full of. The history of chess is full of one abstract opening theory after another being undermined and eventually discarded - I used to hear about the inferiority of the QGA relieving the tension too early. Well try letting your engine run for 30 moves and compare the QGA vs. the QGD or slav - they're dead equal... because every line that attempts to hold the tension ends up making some concession or another. Looking at the lines in the KIA - they're all dead equal... the lines against e6, the lines not against e6... all basically zeros or close to it. The engine isn't really substantiating this belief in the major inferiority of other KIA lines. Feel free to show some critical lines and argue otherwise, but I'm not seeing it myself. But again, this just wasn't the original claim I made in any case, and don't claim to be a KIA expert.

Carry onward!

The small center defense from the pirc aims for a central counter-strike.