The Queens Gambit Accepted...Would you recommend it?

I had fairly good results against the QGA though its hard for black to fight for a win if white is satisfied with a draw. That's one drawback. QGA is a good opening even then why not go for grundfeld if you like. According to my personal experience grundfeld is the most successful opening for me.

Look, we are essentially saying the same thing, except, all of this is completely dependent upon who is playing and how they will play.What percentage of chess players would you say are GMs, 2%?  If 98% of the time a position is won by one side (when played by two players of equal skill) even though 2% of the time or if a computer plays it out its a draw. The 2% are the GMs.These are rough hypothetical statistics, just to make a point about how things could be.

I will relate this back to another thread that was entitled "Is it better to always play the book moves for a position"?

One guy said people throw chairs over this subject, simply put, you may agree that a specific outcome will occur if you keep playing the book moves and is that best? When in reality if you deviate, thou the move is weaker, can that give you an advantage somehow otherwise. Yes, potentially it can, it all revolves around who is playing and how they will play...Think of chess theory as a highlight real from your favorite sport, that shows a spectacular play every play. Does it ever happen in reality?

Pay particular attention to the words I highlighted in red as read the rest of this, though that had their relevance there, in order for the last part to be understood, it is paramount that you base what I am saying in the next paragraph, on them.

I really don't want to argue, theoritcally, it is possible under a set of conditions, that which, if the game were locked into being, before it even began,(and if so why bother play/ and that is precisely why study theory and call it "theory"/ and why we play the games inspite of theory/ because our games aren't predetermined by what theory dictates could be)you are right, but if any two players, aside from GMs and computers, do you honestly think from that position, book will always occur? I will tell you no, it almost never will, even if GMs are playing it might not. You might be more likely to win the lottery than to see it happen between anyone else. So after arguing this theory until we want to puke, if it usually never gonna happen anyway, who cares?

Dear Spaghettio and Chess Colleagues,

All these massive quotations (above) are unworkable.  Sorry, I keep my posts modular and eminently readable.  Just read the "bolded text" and you're done with me.

In a nutshell, there is a very sharp variation (The Two Knights) within the QGA in which White deliberately gives up the pawn for other compensation.

And there are about 5 or 6 sub-variations within the Two Knights, where both White and Black get to make various move choices, all leading to hair-raising complications.  These sub-variations (where Black "keeps the pawn" and white "doesn't want to take it back") are covered in about 7 pages of annotated text (with GM games cited) in James Rizzitano's (2005) book on the QGA, by Gambit Publishing.

But I don't have the book at my fingertips, presently.  And please, I didn't just "make this shit up" to score debating points.  

White doesn't have to recover the pawn, and black doesn't have to give back the pawn in the Two Knights Variation.  Both options are available, and are subject to continuing GM and GM/Centaur investigations.  Last I heard.

*Having just re-read all the previous posts, Spaghettio has asserted 1) he read some Opening Tome @20 years ago that included the QGA, and 2) probably about the same time, he read or heard some GMs and the WC say--"Black cannot hang onto the pawn in the QGA."

Sounds like 1) very "old evidence," when Spaghettio was much younger lad, and 2) a blatant "appeal to authority," via recollections.

And the kicker to this assertation is that Houdini's (+0.14) evaluation proves his case? The "structure" of his argument just takes your breath away.   

Yes, this thread appears to have "ganged up" on Spaghettio.  Presumably because of what he said, and how he said it to others.  Typically, you reap what you sow.  

Best Wishes to All,

zborg

I wonder if this is the crux of the issue, of why it's not particularly popular these days. But if you have the personality (like me) where you're okay with a draw as black, then it might just be the right opening. I think I'll add it to my repertoire.

Both the QGA and Petroff have been around for so long, about 250 years, that dozens of "draw by repetition" positions have been developed.  Nonetheless, the tactics involved in getting there remain "red hot."

These "repetition draws" are usually 25 to 30 move pairs into the games.  Last night, I looked up the Two Knights Variation in QGA.  Found 3 or 4 such examples, all around move #30.

You can be fairly confident that your opponent won't know "these tactics" that deep, unless he's a titled player, of course.

Both openings are a "minefield" for the unprepared.  Lots of fun too.  

Yes, of course you can add that to your repertoire. There are some very interesting lines there. For eg. 1.d4 d5 2. c4 dxc4 3. Nc3 e5 4. d5 c6 etc.

Why on earth would I want to add an interesting line to my repertoire??

This is the only line I like from QGA :

Black either loses quickly or gets a terrible game if he/she tries holding on to the QGA "gambit" pawn at all costs. The idea of QGA is fast development and to avoid cramped positions typical of many QGD lines. Presuming that the Albin CG is working for you, you could try playing QGA occasionally to see what it's like for you. If the Albin isn't working for you just ditch it and play QGA every chance you get until you decide to keep it or expunge it from your opening arsenal.

Try playing thru as many games as you can with QGA played by GMs to get some ideas about how to play it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Gambit_Accepted

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ue14nMxaO4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ue14nMxaO4

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessopening?eco=d20

I, on the other hand, think that getting off-topic is delightful.

I really enjoy QBA as White... but I avoid it all together with Kings Indian in QP game as black. 

I'm a houdini-boy (Of course I do test its evaluation and play out many moves to see if it doesn't suddenly find something, but I find myself agreeing with it here), so bear with me, but it can't find much advantage at all for white in the QGA surprisingly. Same for many lines of the QGD, the main exception being the exchange variation because the static pawn structure makes it more difficult for black to make freeing exchanges.

What's funny is that black will even play moves like ...a6 (even after white has played Bxc4 for instance), which when I first saw it, seemed ridiculous and cheeky to the extreme. In lines where white plays e3, white has an extra center pawn, but his queen's bishop is blocked in, and the pawns simply don't make that many threats, to the point where black even has time to move pawns on the queenside with ...a6, ...b5, then bring the bishop to the long diagonal. He will generally get in ...c5 very quickly if he desires, always giving him the option of trading bishop pawn for center pawn, like what black did in reverse when he played ...dxc4. White in my opinion should fight for an advantage in more modest ways, such as thinking of a pawn breakthrough with d5, or e4 followed by d5. But it's not so easy to achieve and it often just leads to lots of exchanges that don't really net white much progress.

White can also be more aggressive with an e2-e4 push early on, rather than e2-e3, but even in these lines, white's pawns on e4 and d4 are just pawns -- pawns in themselves are not going to create threats against the position, meanwhile they can be attacked.

So I think the QGA is in effect as good as the QGD, even if it may look less natural. Black's apparent concession of the center is surprisingly not bad at all -- it is rather difficult for white to make anything out of his central majority. It should be noted that in the QGA, due to the open lines, black's pieces are actually less bottled up than in the QGD; for instance, the c8 bishop usually finds a good home on b7 pretty easily. Black just has to be careful about possible central pushes for white like d4-d5 or e4-e5; I think that if black plays accurately, those ideas will not give him any problems.

The last question then for you is taste. You can try it out, see if you like it, because it is totally sound and arguably not worse than black's main defenses against d4. It often does tend to be more of an equalizing opening, but I had always been fascinated about how black was able to play those slow ...a6 moves and totally get away with them. But yes, it's generally more for solid players.

Note that when I say QGA I mainly mean it as a strategic formation, not the declaration that black is going to take and hold the pawn. There are some strange lines where black really can hold the pawn (e.g., 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 Nf3 c6 followed by ...Be6 might hold it), but the moves he makes are so awkward that when I face it with white I just don't care that he keeps it. If it's that important to him I'll let him lose coordination and he can have his ill-gotten gains.

That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad though! I think white is better, but black's position is still solid there, and it might freak out white players who are told that black automatically loses when he tries to hold the pawn. There is still a game to be played.

"Sure, white has central control, also sure, he has very active play, but he does have to find targets to attack. And this is far from easy."

This quote by IM pfren is a good summary of what it's like when black infamously tries to hold that pawn on c4, whether in the QGA or slav. When you don't have targets, it's just hard to actually make anything out of a space advantage. As I have said, two pawns on e4 and d4 do not aim themselves venomously at a king, and they may even block lines for the bishops and rooks. They do eat up space, but it is not easy to convert this into an actual attack, especially if the pawns are in need of protection.

wow this old topic has been revived.

Yeah, it was such good feedback though. 

I like it because its much less cramped than the slav and or QGD

That's a very poor reason to play the QGA. It's often far more cramped than the Slav. The QGD has known freeing maneuvers that relieve the cramping in key positions.

The QGA is a fully playable opening, but it's playable only if you focus on developing your pieces quickly and you don't mind a slightly passive position.

It depends on how we are defining cramped. Some people do it based on how much space our pawns take up; in that case one could say the QGD is less cramped than the QGA (the slav I think is usually not that cramped in most lines) because of black's d5 pawn in the center.

But I think that misses the big picture. Despite this pawn on d5 black gets, the point is that most of his pieces are often on passive squares, such as bishop on e7, bishop often locked on c8 for a while, and the d5 pawn in fact closes off lines, which decreases the scope of his pieces rather than increasing them. Meanwhile in the QGA, black's pieces tend to have more potential scope since the d file is opened and the long diagonal is open. Black's bishop has a few more early options as well, such as c5 if recapturing after a ...c5 break, or putting the bishop on d6 because he doesn't have to worry about a pin with Bg5.

I wouldn't say the QGA is better or worse than the QGD (in general), it just has its own trade-offs. Obviously in the QGD black can solve a lot of his problems by playing ...c5, with or without ...dxc4, or by moving his f6 knight to exchange bishops, assuming a bishop is on g5. The advantage to having a pawn on d5 is that it is harder for white to push forward with d4-d5 and/or e4.

Like I said earlier though, I think the exchange variation, 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 cxd5 exd5, is a great way for white to play, as black would normally be looking to liquidate the center with ...dxc4 and ...c5 but now this is hard to do and his development tends to be less natural than white's. In fact, when it comes to that particular variation, I think the QGA is objectively stronger. In the typical 4 Bg5 or 4 Bf4 lines, the accepted and declined are about equal to each other.

Nonetheless I don't mind playing the black side of any QGD, and that's my defense of choice to the queen pawn at the moment.

My view is that the QGA is easier to prepare for as white, and has a less-well-defined path to equality for black, compared with the Lasker or Tartakower.

I recently was able to prepare an entire line against the QGA in an OTB tourney game against a 2350, in about an hour and a half. I left that preparation with the conclusion that the QGA is perfectly playable but still a little struggle for black to get the elusive "well now it's obvious that e position is equal."

That being said, I absolutely recommend it. It's valuable to learn openings to that level of preparation, and it should take about four hours I'd say.

What I do as preparation is to take notes on my preparation, sort of writing an article to myself, complete with diagrams and variations. And I do it in Evernote, so that it is accessible from my smartphone. You never know when you're going to wonder "dammit what was that line white should be playing against 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 dxc4 ?????"