I've been playing the Budapest mainly for a very long time, maybe it's time for a change.

I really don't like very closed positions, always fianchettoing things, etc, and it seems to me the QGA will suit me just fine. I've tried a few, with mixed results, but hey, I'm still learning...

Here are some preliminary thoughts, please tell me where I'm wrong or right :)

1. d4 players don't really want you to take the pawn, they don't mind, but they'd prefer something else.
2. It leads to the kind of messy positions I like, it's not a nice tidy board where everything is under control.
3. I'm in good company, Anand and Kasparov have both used it often .
4. I like the lines where Black plays an early a6, why isn't this more popular? (I think it's called the Alekhine variation)
5. Why isn't it the main defense to the QG? Why does Black generally prefer something else? 
6. A 57% score for White seems very high, are there White lines which really give Black trouble?

4. is an excellent point. Win the pawn and hold on to it!

I wouldn't worry about the statistics too much, the QGA is a very playable opening at any level.

I dont think you hold the pawn, can you?

I do believe there are lines where black can hang onto the pawn, i remember wathcing an old Nigel Davies DvD where he stated that Be6 is an attempt to hang onto the pawn.

+1. Alekhine was never an advocate of holding on, though...

Hold On!

I personally think that the QGA is a pretty good drawing weapon against 1. d4. As in the Petroff, white gets an early initiative, but black can trade pieces down before the initiative takes effect.

It's interesting that top-level Petroff players like Kramnik and Gelfand choose the Nimzo-indian instead of the QGA. Maybe they think the QGA is too risky without an open file.

Are we talking draw at amateur level or pro level?  I don't believe in drawing weapons below GM level we just don't have the skill to do it, I belive they don't play it at the top level though because there isn't enough play for black, I have heard GMs state in lectures that they don't play these super solid lines as there isn't enough rope for white to hang themselves.

It's a good practical choice, as it's a bit under the radar. Besides, you can play it safe or play it for a win (by trying to hang on to the pawn).

Going along with this, a few other Super-GMs also come to mind:

• Radjabov, who exclusively plays the King's Indian
• Svidler, who exclusively plays the Grünfeld
• Kamsky, who plays the Grünfeld and the a6-Slav

I play the queens gambit a lot, and I love when I see the QGA, because a lot of players will try and hold onto the pawn with a ridiculous queenside pawn chain that is precarious and doesn't develop anything. My feeling is that as long as you are willing to eventually give the pawn back, you will do just fine and frustrate plenty of queens gambit players.

As far as I can tell, the board doesn't seem to get as messy as your hoping, but perhaps that's mainly because I haven't played against people who strive for those messy/complicated positions out of the QGA.

1. I don't think so. Black gives up the centre, who would mind that?

2. Well, the pieces have a lot of room. This can also lead to some uninteresting exchanges through the centre, which is not good for black, if he's behind in development. 

3. Nothing wrong with that.

4. It costs a tempo, and it costs another tempo to play b5, if white just ignores it. By then white might come exchanging through the centre with an active endgame. If not white is still more active.

5. The main concern I think is white will be active with a definite small edge, even into the endgame. Activating your pieces or reorganizing them is easier in the middle game. If there barely is a middle game, the chance is lost. Strong players don't like playing passive endgames, since in general this is where the opponent is going to be strong.

6. It's not one line, white is just a bit more active. Sharpest is 3.e4. White can simply develop and even sacrifice a pawn. Black can even end up a pawn ahead, but those lines are arduous if played well. You can just look it up, it's too much to discuss all at once.

It's very underrated opening at club level, mostly because a lot of players taking the pawn don't know what they are doing. Not long ago was very popular at elite level particularly as reliable drawing weapon. Not so much now, maybe because of the Bb3 line given in Avrukh's book possibly.

Have tried it myself but was uncomfortable because of the amount of calculating needed with the open lines. Opponents were fairly uncomfortable too because not the sort of safe d4 stodge most club players like. If get into it, good books are by Riziano, "How to win against 1d4", and one by Semkov from Bulgarian company chess stars. Personally think it more a technical opening for FIDE 2200+, lower rated players will find the counterplay more obvious in KingsIndian, or prefer straightforward development with QueensGambit declined (Tartakower\Lasker). It all depends on your tastes of course.

This is an example where the c pawn was taken and which led to win...altough by blunder from white.

Thanx for that, it will take me while to digest....

The link, if anyone's interested:

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/does-tempo-matter-in-the-qga