Dutch or Grunfeld?

Lately I have some bad results with my normal response to 1.d4, the nimzo-indian defense. I can behind in development and quickly my opponents are able to start a big Kingside attack.Therefore, I'm thinking about adding a new opening to my repertoire. The openings which I consider are the grunfeld and the Dutch defense.

Which do you recommend? Maybe it's usefull to notice, that my strong point (or least weak point) is the endgame. The sooner I get to an (equal) endgame, the better. The opening is by far my weakest point.

You lag behind in development when playing the Nimzo?!? Really? If so, then I would probably avoid the Dutch if I were you as it is a far slower system than the Nimzo. In many lines of the Nimzo, one of Black's plusses is a lead in development in exchange for less space, bishop pair, etc., so if you are lagging in development you might want to take a different approach to that opening because Black is usually at least as developed as White, if not more, in the early stages...

What do you like besides endgames? Do you like playing against a pawn center? Do you like heavy theory? Kingside attacks? How important is king safety to you? Your answers to these questions will help determine which of the two defences would be a better fit for you.

I also try to enter an endgame asap, however its not so easy against d4.

I could recommend the QGA, its very easy, solid and often the queens are traded off pretty early. Ive used it for a while with good results, but switched to benko for some fresh air, and because its fits nicely with my repertoire.

Grunfeld can reach endgams in the mainline, but they are very forcing endgames which will be decided more by who knows theory than actual endgame skill.

Dutch is one o those systems that keep lots of pieces on the board for a while, so its not exactly a quick route to an endgame, and i dont you will will reach very many by comparison to a QGA or QGD.

Dont worry about the rudeness of the prior post. Hes a knucklehead . If you experiment with many openings you will become a more rounded player and therefore improve. He is saying that you played that opening poorly and still have a ton of theory to learn. I recommend getting a book on a single opening and seriously study it while playing a ton of games with it. Learn one solid opening in and out and then move on. Good luck with chess and find what works best for you

The nimzo player allows a big pawn center without either undermining it or putting pressure on the doubled pawns. I think that this may certainly demonstrate lack of knowledge of the basic strategical plans of the nimzo indian.

If you are really into the nimzo indian and you just want to improve your results, I would kindly suggest you to pick a good book on the topic and get a grasp of the typical opening plans and ideas. I'm sure your results will improve a lot.

Yeah probably I get behind in development because of the lack of space. I dont know where to develop my pieces and then I make awkward moves. Especially the lightsquared bishop causes problems.

I appreciate your questions and suggestions, but it is difficult to answer them, since I'm playing chess since a year or so. I don't like heavy theory, but I do like KIngside attacks (as long as I am the attacking one). King safety is very important to me, especially with the queens still on the board. That's why I didn't like the nimzo-indian anymore. A lot of the time white it able to start a nice attack. My underdevelop kingside is easy to attack with white bishops and queen lining up.

Playing against pawncenter? I don't know.. I do like positional play and slowly increase my position. I think I'm quite decent in calculating, however it takes a lot of time for me. Therefore, in blitz I make unnessescary mistakes, because calculations take to much time.

So what do you suggest?

Thanks I'll take a look at the QGA. The reason why I'm attracted to the Dutch is because I'm from the Netherlands and want to be familiar with my countries name opening ;) Furthermore it is not the most common respons to d4 and maybe I can surprise some players with it.

Thanks for taking the time to go through some of my livegames! I really appreciate it that a Master uses his time to help an amateur. And yep that was an example of where it didn't went as planned. I do know a little theory about the nimzo-indian (targetting whites doubled pawns). Therefore I thought with playing 4. ..Ne4 I just trade a knight for a knight (instead of bishop) and still doubling his pawns and simulteasnously attack his c3 pawn with my bishop.However I came out undevelopped. It is true that I should spent more time exploring this opening. But since I just play chess since for a year, I just simply choose one defense against 1.d4 ( Im a e4 player and know more about sicilian, scandanavian, ruy lopez, scotch, berlin defense etc.) and focus my attention on the endgame.

But I get uncomfortable playing the nimzo-indian. The 1.e4 and all is going nice and I'm really improving. But when I face 1.d4 my position soonly looks weaks. Therefore I was hoping you guys could give some advise for a simple defense against d4. 

Bobby! I think what Mister pfren is trying to say is that you're good enough to master the nimzo-indian opening. And I think he's right. There are however many variations in this opening. Just go quickly through a couple and look at some theory. Then pick one in which you like the position the most. 

You say you've trouble with your lightsquared bishop? Then simply play b6 and follow this up with Bd7 or Ba6.  This is the Fischer, or bronstein variation of the nimzo-indian. 

Furthermore, you're right about the weakness of whites doubled pawns. But first develop your pieces. See the doubles pawns more as a long term plan. Also play Ne4 only when white queen takes on c3 after Bxc3. 

try d5, i guess

Dutch... The only way I'd play Grunfeld is with Qc7 lines in the exchange. Otherwise I'd have a choice of memorising theory and losing in positions I don't understand or learning about the positions and defending horrible positions because I don't know the theory. That's a big no thanks from me. I'll stick with Tartakower. 

If you're scared of theory, the Grunfeld probably is not the wisest choice... The dutch (especially the Leningrad variation) can often give you attacking chances on the kingside, but it is double-edged, and in many lines you may find the safety of your own king coming into question. Leningrad endgames are often nice for Black because his king gets to the center quickly, but as someone previously mentioned, pieces usually stay on the board for a while and there is no way to force White into an endgame right off the bat. As a 1.d4 player, and someone who has played the Leningrad a lot, I must confess that I still prefer White in the mainlines. Likewise, I am always happy to play against the Grunfeld because I find that at club level, Black often has a hard time defending against White's pawn center (I have not played it as Black though, and honestly probably never will).

Honestly, going by your rating on here and time spent playing chess, I would probably reccommend something like the QGD orthodox or the Slav. They are solid choices, where you shouldn't have too many problems keeping a foothold in the center, developing your pieces to good squares, and keeping your fair share of space. Again, I really like the White side of these openings, but that is just because 1.d4 is such a great move :D.

And, besides, when playing the Nimzo you need a back-up opening for when White avoids 3.Nc3. That is not true of the QGD or Slav. The KID is perhaps something you could also look into if you like kingside attacks, but you must be willing to learn a lot of theory and enjoy playing with a lot less space. I would not reccomend the QGA as it unprincipally gives White a strong center, and can easily be avoided by 2.Nf3.

The opening is NOT this OP's problem, unfortunately.  Not by a long shot.

Save your keystokes for "study time," instead.

Your play is clueless in the Nimzo, inter alia.  

If you want to avoid tons of theory you may try the Old-Indian which goes 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 d6 3.Nc3 e5 (or 3...c6 4.e4 e5).

Black has a simple plan here: Be7, O-O, Nd7, Qc7, Re8, Bf8 and developing Bc8 on b7 after b6 or a6, b5 (sometimes a6, b6 if white plays a4).

The position is similar to Philidor defence (with the difference of white having played c4) so if you like passive yet solid openings you may give it a try. You may use the same scheme also after 1.c4 or 1.Nf3 - it is somewhat more universal than Nimzo

I don't think that it is time to change opening. In chess there are a lot of times in which your opening will get busted. The chess answer to that is learning to understand what happened and finding other ways to play.

Euwe, Donner and Timman played the Nimzo-Indian. Maybe is that a good connection being Dutch and playing chess. :-)

Just play the English Defence to rip apart white's centre. Also, not many people know it and you can get a ferocious attack (make sure you learn the theory though)

personaly i don't like the grunfeld so i would recommend the dutch

Ok thanks guys! I'll study the nimzo-indian some more and I'll study the Dutch defense later

Gruenfeld Indian gives you endgame advantage for black with a queenside majority, but you will need to neutralize the white play in the center and sometimes kingside.

Dutch defense is a little bit unsound, but is played by for example GM Reinderman (who is pretty good in endgames).

And regarding Nimzo-Indian : Even Magnus Carlsen has problems with it as black, looking at one game in the last World Championship against Anand, and a recent game against Nakamura where he barely escaped defeat.

Gruenfeld Indian is a solid choice (and lots of GMs play it), but you will have to study the opening lines. My impression is also that there's more Gruenfeld openings tricks to be learned than with Dutch defense.

One other option is to study Hedgehog setups, or Modern defense which you can play against anything that white plays.