How to beat the Queen's Gambit.

For all intents and purposes the d pawn cannot be defended by any pawn ever, and is in a sense, "isolated", even in that line. Perhaps a better way to say it is that black always gets a "weak" d pawn.

Here is my thoughts on lines in the QG:

Instead, this move order seems better for black, but you need to be able to play Nimzo:

And now the lasker and tarkatower seem like the best tries although black is playing for equality at best.

If you dont like positions coming from QGD, just take the pawn, play QGA. I'm not doing any better, but I am enjoying the games more.

It is really simple, Sit against your oponent think in the board and win the match!!!!!!!!

pfren, I've been told by several GM's  not to play 3...Nf6 because the QGD exchange with Nge2 is good for white. It's not really dubious, but it's not considered good by modern theory (assuming white knows what to do), which is what I meant by ?!.

Also, you could try the vienna as black if you like sharp play. It can transpose to some QGA lines as well if white tries quieter variations.

Easy; Dutch Stonewall. It not only equalizes but it gives black great attacking chances and locks up the center so that there is no roon for counterplay.

Wow, TasmanianTiger. If only any of that were true, it would be a great opening. Unfortunately, not only does Black not completely equalize, but White has great attacking chances and there is plenty of room for counterplay.

Albin Counter Gambit, followed by a Lasker Trap if you're lucky. It is a very strong combination against the Queen's Gambit.

Slav.

I'm really sorry for this, blasterdragon, but did you actually count the pawns? Black is down a pawn, but up a minor piece at the end of that line. Also, Nxd5 is a known error and play usually continues 5.e3 c6 6.Nf3 Qa5.

I have been playing the Tarrasch for many years and I plan to study it sometime in future. I find with the Tarrash (for that matter what ever opening I play), I usually win against players lower rated than I, struggle and lose against those higher rated. But it's always good.

hahaha, generally thats how it works 

I can counter that theory.  I don't play the French any more, but I can tell you that, speaking as a 1900 to 2000 player then, about 2055 now, that I beat many, many, MANY higher rated players.  Especially those that played the Alekhine-Chatard Attack, which I have a perfect record against playing 6...c5 instead of accepting with 6...Bxg5.  However, I have many, many, MANY losses against 1700 baffoons that played the Exchange, and I tried too hard to win.

That's why now I don't play a defense that features the "Exchange Variation".  The Modern Defense kicked butt last night, and it will continue to on my board when I'm Black!  Works against e4 or d4!

yes so black is up two pawns since a knight is worth 3 is it not?

No. When talking about material imbalances, if you say Black is up two pawns, it means he has two pawns more than White. Otherwise you say Black is up a piece for a pawn, as in this case.

its alot easier to say black is up two pawns tho

It may be easier, but it's also completely wrong and no serious chess player will know what you're talking about. It might make sense to you, but if you think of material as having such a static value, it will hamper your chess progression. A knight for a pawn is not worth the same as two extra pawns. I would much rather have a knight for a pawn in most situations this early in the game, while two extra pawns could be totally useless in the form of isolated, tripled rook pawns, for example.

Expertise87 is correct of course.

A knight is not ALWAYS worth three pawns. That's why with any chart of piece values it will say "RELATIVE Value of the pieces." A White knight on e6 and a White knight on a1 are not of equal value. In fact, the same White knight on e6 is likely of greater value than a White ROOK on a1 with White pawns on a2 and b2 and a White knight on b1.