1.d4 and the French?

I am a loyal French Defense player as black. The pacing overall, the natural timing of manuevers, the defensive resources that always seem to waiting at home, the chances for sharp or postional wins. It all "feels" natural to me.

I am looking for the defense that has this same natural feel for me against 1.d4. 

It has been suggested to me the following: QGD, Slav, Semi-Slav, NID/QID/BID, Dutch, or the KID.

For those of us who are one dimensional intuitive "feel" players (as opposed to well rounded, or one dimensional concrete theoreticians), which 1.d4 defense approximates the French?

Obviously, playing them out myself helps answer my own question, but would appreciate input from others, especially other French Defense players.

1d4 e6 2c4 Nf6 going for a Nimzo is one idea...or 1d4 e6 2c4 b6 is another and I think the French and the English Defences are often paired in many players repertoires...

BTW I think 1d4 e6 2Nf3 c5 is good against the stodge merchants. It rules out 3 Bf4 so that would be London players would have to commit to playing an early c3- something they don't necessarily want to do.

I say Dutch or Slav. Are you an attacking player or are you positional?

Dutch if attacking, Positional the Slav or Indians.

I think I am more positional overall.

If I could wave a magic wand and adopt a style of one of the greats, I would like to be a combination of Rubinstein, Botvinnik, and Smyslov.

Any QGD variation apart from the Ragozin and Cambridge Springs should be fine. The Tartakower is the most ambitious of choices due to the complexity of it but the theory still won't be too big a deal.

1. e6 should transpose most of the time. If 2.c4 then d5 transposes into QGD which has a similar feel

Looking through some of the other forum threads, I can eliminate the QGD. Similar pawn structure to French, but totally different in style. Suprisingly to me, the KID is most often presented as most similar to the French. 

The KID isn't really like the French. I mean you have the whole wall-o-pawns thing going on but your wins are pretty much dependant on very active play, lots of calculation and sacs for initiative. It's definitely not something you want to try and feel around with.

Very glad to hear from a loyal French player. I also love the French (I have since switched to the Caro-kann to resolve the french bad bishop) and I used to have the same problem as you.

I play the nimzo and I recommend it for you because as black you do get a similar structure compared to a french winawer. you have pawn on e6 and bishop pinning knight on c3. In many lines black can get in d5 as well to get the full french structure (transposing into QGD Regozin lines for example). Some players play c5 as well to get a Tarrasch like pawn structure, but that might not suit your style and I find c5 is not strictly necessary. I prefer d5 over c5 because other than getting a french like structure, I do not want white to get in e4 so easily, as I think white is comfortable if white have pawns on c4 d4 and e4 unchallenged.

Play is different in that white's c pawn is forward and e pawn is back on the original square. White does not have advance variations or ways to immediately grab space (even as a fan of the French defence I often do struggle with the lack of space and sometimes pieces get tangled and that's not much fun.). White usually will play some devloping moves, often with e3 or start a fiancetto which give you time to develop and get your strategy going. In the few times that white try to go crazy and attack you immediately, the attack is simply unsound as black is perfectly solid and are following opening principles.

White does have some pinning tricks and queen tricks so you should check out the main lines before play. Once you get the hang of it I think you will find it a comfortable defence.

1d4 e6 2c4 Bb4ch is a nice additional option for French players. The book mentioned by IM pfren covers it. Can play Nimzo-Indian type positions avoiding some of the heavily theoretical lines. This book has some very good chapters comprehensive and good explanations, mixed with some strange ones, for example, were one move novelties are mentioned then nothing done with them. It depends a lot what source material is available to be cut and pasted from the New in chess magazines, I think. Eingorn covered similar ground in "Solid rep with 1..e6". In his speciality lines performs trick of being both concise and having more explanation than other book. Something of a minor classic.

Thank you for your comments.

Please re-read my OP. I am not trying to play the French, ...e6, or even French-like positions against 1.d4. 

Yeah, this is what I think too. Maybe the person who posted that in the threads is confused. Someone suggested somewhere that KID and French are very similar because Petrosian and Uhlmann play both, and their styles are similar.

The similarity between the King's Indian and the French has NOTHING to do with who played them.

I tell every French player that asks this Question to play the King's Indian Defense.

The ideas are nearly identical.  The center, in most variations, ends up being completely blocked.  There is a specific strategy, when the center is completely "blocked" (different than "closed", like the QGD), called the "Pawn Pointing Theory".  Whatever direction your pawns point, that's the side you attack.  The French has a blocked center in the majority of lines, and think about most GM games in the French.  Black attacks Queenside, White attacks Kingside.  Why is that?  It's because the center is completely blocked, and White's pawns point towards the Kingside, and Black's the Queenside.  Even in the Advance Variation with 6.a3 c4, With White's King on g1 and Black's King on c8, White STILL should attack Kingside and Black STILL should attack Queenside.

Now look at the King's Indian Defense.  With White pawns on f3, e4, and d5, and Black pawns on d6, e5, and f4, the center is again completely blocked, and think about how the play proceeds.  White attacks Queenside because his pawns point that way.  Black attacks the King.

Also, notice that in both lines, Black has a really bad bishop.  If you have the knowledge of how to handle the bad bishop from being a French player, you have a leg up on understanding what to do with that Bishop on g7 in the King's Indian Defense.

Similarity of openings is not based on same pawn structure for one side.  The Pirc and King's Indian are nothing alike, despite the only real difference from a pawn structure perspective being the White c-pawn.  It's about having the same strategical ideas, same "type" of pawn structure, not "same squares" for each pawn.  With the French and King's Indian, you are talking about the "blocked" pawn structure.

Think about if you try to make the same pawn moves against 1.e4 and 1.d4.  In the French, you play e6, d5, and c5.  That would be the Tarrasch Defense against 1.d4.  In the French, outside of the Open Tarrasch Variation (3.Nd2 c5 4.exd5 exd5), Black rarely has an IQP.  In the Tarrasch Defense, Black almost always has an IQP.  They are nothing alike in reality.

So yes, a French player should heavily think about taking up the King's Indian Defense as the overall strategy of the two openings are very similar.  Yes, the opposite player goes directly for the King in each case, but if you truly have any understanding of an opening, then you can play it from both sides.  If you are completely incapable of playing the French from the White side, then you can't say that you know the French, despite how good you are with Black.  I know the French because I can play both sides of it, but I choose not to play the Black side because I don't like the positions he gets from 3.e5 or 3.Nc3, but I understand them!  Being "able" to play both sides of an opening and "actually" playing both sides are also two different things.

This is helpful. Thank you.

The king's indian and French are completely different while the king's indian and pirc often have very similar themes and ideas. 

Wrong!  The Pirc often involves breaking White's Center with ...c5, where if taken, Black throws the Queen out to a5.  Other lines lead to advances of the b-pawn (b7-b5-b4) to dislodge the Knight and attack e4. 

Neither of these ideas happen in the King's Indian with even a remote amount of regularity.  In the King's Indian, Black rarely wants to mess with e4 - leave the White pawn there and not let White use that square as a launch pad for his Knights, hence why Black advances in most lines to f4 rather than trade on e4, which White should almost ALWAYS recapture with the Knight, NOT the f-pawn!

You only say the French and King's Indian are nothing alike because of the specific location of Black's pawns (i.e. on Dark Squares instead of Light Squares).  Similar Openings is NOT about putting your pawns on the same squares.  It's about the middlegame ideas being the same basic idea.  Doesn't mean the specifics are the same, just the general concepts.  In the French Black attacks Queenside while in the King's Indian he attacks Kingside, but the ideas behind both openings and the reasoning for Black's strategy in each is almost identical!

If one were to ask me which defense to 1.d4 a Pirc player should play, it would most certainly be the Modern Benoni, NOT the King's Indian, which is nothing more than a Kingside Assault with a Blocked Center in the main line, which is overwhelmingly played the most often, and even in most other variations, other than maybe the Saemish and Four Pawns Attack, Black's idea is pretty much the same.

The only thing the Pirc and King's Indian have in common is the first 5 moves for Black!  The ideas are NOTHING alike!

Also, just to give you an idea what I mean about how similar ideas DOES NOT mean similar pawn structures, below are openings I recommend to people in the form of e4-defense/d4-defense.  If you play one, you will have likely success playing the other because of many similar (not "same", "similar") ideas in each opening:

French/King's Indian
Sicilian/Grunfeld
Pirc/Modern Benoni
Caro-Kann/Nimzo-Indian
1...e5/1...d5

ThrillerFan:

You are selling it to me. Taking your words to mind and now playing a few quick KIDefense, I get what you are saying. The "feel' is very similar. I am enjoying the manuevering aspect with the sudden tactics or simplification "out of nowhere" combined with the crowded center. More of a dark square focus, but yes definitely has a similar natural feel for me.

I would greatly appreciate your input on how you would answer this question for several other openings other than the French/KID, and the Pirc/Modern Benoni (as you stated above).

As a conceptual person, this is extremely helpful stuff. Thanks.

Edit: Looks like you answered my question in an edit of your post before I finished mine. Keep expanding that list if you don't mind.

Wow, what a load of nonsense. You can "recommend" whatever you like, I think most of what you're saying is wrong and inaccurate. For example claiming.... well just.... almost everything you've said. As if c5 or Qa5 or advances of the b-pawn are unusual in king's indian or don't happen "with even a remote amount of regularity", you clearly don't know the first thing about any of these defences.   

Go Blue - To answer your question - first off, don't listen to the utter moron that is the author of posts 20 and 22.  He doesn't even understand the King's Indian Defense and ideas like the Bishop sac on h3 in the Classical or ...a5 and ...Na6/...Nc5 idea against the Petrosian, or ...c5 to break up White's center in the Four Pawns, or the opposite side attacks in the Saemisch, and that nowhere does any of this involve ...b7-b5-b4 ideas to dislodge the Knight and grab the e-pawn like one would do often in a Pirc (or Modern Benoni).

As for openings with similar style of play, I can't speak much for the offbeat stuff like the Alekhine as I don't really play it and just blow it off the board with the Classical Variation when I'm White.  Not a well-rounded Alekhine player, but know enough of the Classical.

However, if you talk more mainstream openings, here's what I always recommend to people:

French Players - King's Indian, the reasons to which you are seeing for yourself.

Pirc Players - Modern Benoni, both very wild, tactical, and have the same general ideas.  Go after the c3-Knight to deflect from e4 and try to win the e-pawn.  Also be on the lookout for over-extension by White on the Kingside or center that may lead to a mating attack for Black, tactically.

Sicilian Players - Grunfeld Defense, both lead to extremely dynamic play where White tries to blow the Black King off the board where Black must put up very stout defense or else be destroyed, but the vast majority of endgames favor Black with most the trumps being in the form of pawns.  In the Sicilian, it's usually an extra central pawn.  In the Grunfeld, it's usually having a majority on the side away from the Kings (if both Kings castle Kingside, which is typical in the Grunfeld, it's better to have a Queenside majority than a Kingside majority assuming all other factors are equal).  Most of your entertaining miniatures with sacrificial attacks are White wins, but Black scores really well in both defenses via favorable endings.  Strong endgame play is required to succeed here.

Caro-Kann Players - Nimzo-Indian Defense.  Both openings involve fluid pawns with vastly different pawn structures in each variation.  The Caro-Kann can lead to a blocked center via the Short Variation of the Advanced Caro-Kann, and it can also even lead to a minority attack in the Exchange Variation, which is, in essence, a Carlsbad pawn structure (what you get from the exchange QGD) reversed.  If you are looking for openings with diverse positions where piece activity dictates the resulting pawn structure, this is the way to go.

1...e5 - 1...d5.  1...e5 leads to a more positional game if neither side tries to gambit.  If Black wants more calm waters, he can still answer the Danish Gambit with an early ...d5, giving the pawn back, and going to a positional, drawish endgame.  Against the King's Gambit, he can play 2...Bc5, which isn't as wild as some of the KGA lines.  Against 2.Nf3, the main moves are 2...Nc6 and 2...Nf6, both of which tend to lead to very strategic battles and both sides must always watch out for available tactics.  I mainly tell Petroff and Berlin players to go for a slower battle in an Orthodox QGD or Lasker Defense while your 2...Nc6 players get more of a similar type style of game (again, different pawn structures) out of the Tartakower.

Some openings just really don't have a "mate".  The Slav, Tarrasch Defense, and Benko Gambit don't really have a King Pawn "equivalent".

I wish opening  books were written this way. Concepts or "personalities" and traits, if you will, rather than mostly theory. Not all of us learn through rote memory and concrete scientific left brain thinking.

What about the QID and the Dutch? To me the Caro-Kann feels more similar to the QID than to the NID, and the Dutch feels like the Slav at times.

How about the QGA? 

Thanks again. This is so helpful.