avoiding IQP in QGD

I 'm sorry that I 'm coming up with just another question again, but at this point I have more questions than answers.

Is it possible to avoid IQP and/or hanging duo pawns in QGD as Black?

If not, is the QGA a nice way to achieve that? It seems that in QGA white usually ends up with an IQP and not black, but I can't really tell if that is always the case.

As a principle, I wouldn't accept the QG. I don't like giving up a central pawn. However, I don't like the isolated pawns / extra islands of the Declined version more.

Principles based on what? Some knowledge, or some aphorism another played has passed to you?

Playing with, and against the IQP is essential knowledge for any improving chessplayer, you cannot really get anywhere by just refusing playing such positions (which is hardly possible, anyway).

Why don't you like an IQP? I love playing IQP positions. 

Just my preference of not giving up a central pawn for one that s not that central, at least not that early.

I won't argue with you, you are right, but I 'm trying to minimise the positions that I don't like.

I have figured out most of my opening prefrences, but against d4 is what puzzles more. The most logical and natural variation for me the QGD usually leads to a position that I don't like. I was playing the Nimzo-Bogo-Indian variations, but they didnt feel that natural and moreover I didn't like giving up a bishop for a knight in some continuations.

Oh, I see.

I don't like giving a bishop for a knight, either.

I also don't like having an IQP.

And I hate having doubled pawns, as well as hanging pawns.

I despise having less space than my opponent, and I don't even think about having to defend.

I prefer solid positions, where I am a piece up.

Any chances I am playing the wrong game?

I think he's looking for the opening that does all those things. But it doesn't exist.

I guess I ve been sounding stupid or too ignorant. My mistake and i 'm sorry.

I m happy with all my lines as black or white at least in the major openings, but for black against d4.

Last year or so I ve tried to move into openings that had variations that I d instictively play and not one that I d have to look up even as early as the 3rd move. That's what I mean by natural or right for me. A more experienced player will probably find Indian or hypermodern variations natural, but not me. I want my pawns early there in the center. If they have to go they must take down at least an equal pawn in compensation.

I guess my brain is as classical or orthodox as it can be, seeing only d5 as the only proper reply to d4 (and e5 to e4)

It's hard to put into words why I don't like IQP. Probably, because when I have one it ends up limiting my whole game around it. I know that it isn't bad but I like to have options and possibilities. I don't know if you understand what I mean. It's not the IQP itself that I dislike. On the contrary, my favourite part of the game is the endgame and there usually are more than one isolated pawns.

An IQP is not something that I d voluntary get in an opening, just like I wouldn't pick a variation that throws away my right to castle. If it happens, it s fine, but not someting that I m looking for.

I have adopted the QGD against d4 and for convinience trying to transpose into it after c4 and Nf3 as well, but that annoying IQP keeps repeating itself more than I  d like.

I had been discarding the QGA as an inferior option (for no sound fact though), but now it does look like more than a possibility although rather different than the Declined counterpart.

It was suggested by pfren already. If you do not like IPQ openings you should not adjust your play style to avoid them but instead learn to play the positions with an IQP. By not playing positions with an IQP you deny yourself many possibities to an advantage.

I suggest getting this book: http://www.newinchess.com/Winning_Chess_Middlegames-p-922.html

Btw there are enough ways in the QGD to avoid and IQP position. You could for example play the cambridge springs ofcourse you get other disadvantages in that case as no opening gives black acitivity without doing material or strategic consessions.

There was one more point that I wanted to write. Maybe my dislike for IQP is only because I never had someone to teach me how to properly use them.

---

I think I understand the logic behind your advice moonnie and I m sorry for misunderstanding prfen's reply.

That book seems interesting. Any idea how it compares to 'Winning pawn structures'? I have neither.

Since you mentioned Cambridge Springs, any other places I should be looking for non-IQP ways to play the QGD?

I promise that I will, at least, reconsider my view on the IQP issue

See if this helps DDP (from Pachman:

I do not know the book you mention but there are many good books that explain how to deal with isolani. I like the Sokolov book a lot though it is probably 1700+

Baburin's "Winning pawn structures" is more general than Sokolov's book were a lot of the detail is relevant to 1.d4 classical openings.

As black find it quite hard myself to get enough initiative for IQP. Would recommend learning the hanging pawn positions from Tartakower Queens Gambit though. Personnaly think it is harder for club strength players to pressure these pawns than use them. Would be a good first step in learning dynamic peice play to compensate for pawn structure defects. Nigel Short's games have many good examples. There is also a classic example in Fischer's 60 memorable games.

+1

You need the book "Winning Chess Middlegames" by Ivan Sokolov.

While it's classified as a Middlegame book, all but 5 of them are "Classical" Queen Pawn Openings (i.e. Not Fianchetto lines, like the KID, Grunfeld, etc).  The only exceptions out of the 45 games are 2 Englishes, 1 Grunfeld, 1 Benko, and 1 Petroff.

The book is split into 4 chapters.  Doubled Pawns (which are almost exclusively Nimzo-Indian games), Isolated Pawns (Vast majority of that is the Queen Pawn, and lots of QGD and QGA games in that chapter), Hanging Pawns (say, another one you claim to have a problem with, 4 QGD's and a Semi-Slav), and say, the last chapter is Central Pawn Majorities!

The book is pretty dense.  You have to be willing to put in the time, but it will change your apporach to chess for ever!  You might even want to play 1.d4!! (The best move in all of chess) after reading this book!  Especially given the fact that White outscores Black 36 to 9 in those 45 games, and not a single draw in the entire book!  So one can't argue it's a book full of boring draws!

Thanks for all the advice

i used to fear the IQP as both colors, but in the past year or so, ive been forced to learn how to play such positions as my opening repetoire requires me to learn such.

tbh its not so bad really, in fact, youd be surprised how passive your opponent can be when you have the IQP.

As pellik mentioned, if you don't play ...c5, you won't have to play with an IQP. The QGA is also a way to avoid it.

Even in the systems where Black plays ...c6 and ...e6, there are certain variations where later he has to play ...e5 or ...c5 and accept an IQP- else he will simply watch passively.

IQP positions are a vital part of the game, you cannot "wipe" them from your repertoire.

Another reason that it's vital to know IQP positions is that you can't let that be the driver for how you recapture.  For example, let's say you have no c-pawn, and Black has no d-pawn (Black had done dxc4 earlier and you recaptured with your Bishop).  And now, let's say Black plays ...c5.  You have pawns on d4 and e3, and a Knight on f3.  While in a few cases, it may be right to take on c5, the vast majority of the time, it's not!  That said, let's say Black, on his next turn, plays ...cxd4.  I can tell you that in about 50% of the scenarios, it's actually better to take back with the e-pawn, creating an IQP, than it is to take back with the Knight.  One common reason would be how vital it is (or lack thereof) to control e5 in the current situation.  If you recapture with the Knight, sure you have no IQP, but you have no control over any of the 4 central squares except d4.  If you recapture with the pawn, your knight controls d4, and your knight and pawn control e5.  e5 goes from being hit twice by White (via pawn takes) to not being hit at all by White (via knight takes).

So therefore, strategically speaking, it's probably "preferable" to take with the pawn, but occasionally, it's not possible as Black is stacked against d4, and the pawn will just fall.  However, if you only account for scenarios where you have the d4 square under control, even with the long term weakness of the isolated pawn, I'd bet you at least 80% of them taking with the pawn is better than taking with the Bishop.

Oh, and a second book, which I would recommend you don't read until you've finished Sokolov's book as it's more complicated, is Advanced Chess Tactics by Lev Psakhis.  3 of the 8 chapters deal with IQP (chapters 3 thru 5), and chapter 2 deals with hanging pawns.  The other 4 chapters are opening themed (1 - Benoni, 6 - Sicilian, 7 - Caro-Kann with favoritism for White, 8 - Offbeat Openings).