That latter variation mentioned by TwoMove is the current hot trend in the 4.Qc2 variation. Black seems doing fine, but...
Oh, and neitter the Slav, nor the Nimzo are "easy". OK, they have less theory than the KID, but both are very demanding, positionally-wise (especially the Nimzoindian).
Openings with Black against 1.d4 which are both reliable and light on theory, are just two: QGD/Lasker and QGD/Chigorin. QGD accepted is cool too, but it has little transpositional value.
Scandi, I would suggest e6
Here's why
This way, you have loads of choices based on YOUR preparation
Zaveric, at least give an explanation? Anyone can type d5, and it doesn't help anyone. Let's all help each other out by learning different people's points of views, and improving as a whole as chess players!
Perhaps this is just my experince but I dont understand why you would ever play the KID. Just do what Nakamura does and play the leningrad dutch. Its like a KID but you already have f5 in.
NM ozzie_c_cobblepot, in what way is a easy draw available?
And anyways, isn't the Benko or the Benoni sounder and sharper in terms of gambits?
Well, the Dutch and the Indians can argue all they want, but the Horwitz rules because of it's highly transpository nature.
Against 1.d4 I'm playing KID, but I avoid the pesky Trompowsky by playing 1... g6 and trying to transpose into KID later. White then can do some things like switching into the Pirc, but that's fine with me as this is what I play against 1.e4.
I once considered the Leningrad Dutch, but for me it is like trying to build a house starting with the roof. e5 is just so much more "fundamental" than f5 which should by nature be a break move against a pawn already on e4. I don't think of the repositioning of the f6-knight in the KID as a tempo-losing operation because 1) White has some repositioning to do himself, and 2) in closed positions repositioning of pieces is normal and nothing to worry about. (Note that in the Dutch, the center is NOT closed, so in the end, this opening is a wholy different animal than the KID).
Eric,
If you play the Center Counter against e4, then a similar sharp, and easy to learn (forcing) opening against d4 is the Queen's Gambit Accepted (QGA).
It "kicks in" early, on the second move, and the theory is fairly small. One book is all you'll need.
James Rizzatano, "How to Beat 1d4," Gambit Publications, 2005, covers all you need to know. Very good repertoire book.
I suggest you forget about playing the KID. The theory is gigantic, and you'll spend your life trying to get a handle on it.
Besides, why would a "center counter player" like the congested flank attacks characteristic of the KID? QGA produces an "open tactical game" fairly similar to the center counter.
I conjecture you play the center counter to put your opponent on terrain you have already studied, and the QGA will do the same for you, beginning with move #2.
I'd first start with 1...e6 and then play either d5, f5 or Nf6 to avoid a lot of bogus move-2 stunts
If you play the scandinavian then play the charlick gambit (1.d4 e5) for shits n gigs.
Just so you know, I hate gambits. The Scandinavian is TOTALLY different from the Charlick Gambit. But thanks for suggesting anyway.
the best defence to 1d4 is d5 (like to 1e4 is e5)
Im talking continuations on the long run not just the first moves!
Scandi, I would suggest e6
Here's why
This way, you have loads of choices based on YOUR preparation
Hello Vyomo :)
Yes, that's what I have been doing lately and if you see the just updated first post on this thread, you can see I have already made it my choice :) I'll be putting up some games on the 1) ... e6 on the Amateur Games thread soon (or at least when someone plays d4 against me in Live Chess) :)
You mean 1)d4 Nf6 2) c4 e5 right?
Mind explaining a bit further how is there an easy draw or at least a win here? :)
If you play the Budapest you will still need a full repetorire against d4 because white can easily avoid the Budapest by not playing c4.
That's why the Center Counter is good. Theory is small. Transpositions are few, and the opening "kicks in" on move #1 by Black.
Same reason QGA is excellent as a basis for a repetoire. And there are only about 6-8 others lines that white can otherwise play (assuming he avoids c4).
Ditto with comments earlier in this thread that the Nimzo-Indian is "the best." Yes, but if white doesn't play c4, the no Nimzo will be played, unfortunately. So what opening systems will you be using then?
If you play the Center Counter to be "booked up," and to put your opponents into your opening, then QGA will accomplish much the same versus d4 (with c4).
Otherwise be prepared to know lines in at least 8-10 major openings (with large theories) if you plan to play the Budapest, Nimzo, or others. Because white can easily transpose away from these systems.
We all know that higher-level players typically suggest that folks should play the systems most popular with the GMs, i.e. the Sicilian, Ruy, Nimzo, English, KIA, KID, etc. But if you want a life outside of constant study of opening theory, then a narrowly based repetoire will probably work better.
For example, you mentioned that you play play the Slav. The're a short book by Andy Soltis from the 1980s, "An Black Defense for the Rest of your Chess Career." It suggests that you play the Slav, and Caro-Kann, against EVERYTHING that white throws at you.
Conversely, ala Botvinnik, you can play the Pirc and KID, against everything too. But those 2 systems have gigantic opening theories.
Or you can start playing both sides of the Ruy, or the Sicilian, but be prepared to buy dozens of books for each. These theories are also huge and constantly changing.
I assume you play the Center Counter to by-pass lots of opening theory. Your choice of a (repetoire) defense against white playing d4,c4 should probably following the same line of reasoning.
But if what "slashing tactics" from the Black side, then by all means, starting buying books on "Gambit play for Black." And plan to buy a few extra bookshelves as well.
On balance, you can learn one or two repetoire based systems to play with the Black pieces, and then just use those same two systems from the white side, and your opening preparation is effectively done. Then move onto studying middle game, endgame themes. Your study time is minimized.
It's the easiest way to get above USCF 1800, after that, you can change your "opening-sytem-business-model" at your own whim, and when it suits you.
If you play the Budapest you will still need a full repetorire against d4 because white can easily avoid the Budapest by not playing c4.
That's why the Center Counter is good against e4. Theory is small. Transpositions are few, and the opening "kicks in" on move #1 by Black.
Same reason QGA is excellent as a basis for a repetoire against d4,c4. And there are only about 6-8 others lines that white can otherwise play (assuming he doesn't play c4).
Comments earlier in this thread, that the Nimzo-Indian is "the best opening" are misleading. Yes, Nimzo is the greatest, but if white doesn't play c4, the no Nimzo will be played, unfortunately. So what opening systems for the black pieces will you be using then?
If you play the Center Counter to be "booked up," against e4 players, and to put your opponents into your booked up, then consider playing QGA against the Queens Gambit (d4, c4) because it will accomplish much the same result, an early, forcing, "got him inside my opening preparation" game.
Otherwise be prepared to know MANY lines in at least 8-10 major openings (each with large theories) if you plan to play the Budapest, Nimzo, or others. Because white can easily transpose away from these systems.
We all know that higher-level players typically suggest that folks should play the opening systems popular with the GMs, i.e. the Sicilian, Ruy, Nimzo, English, KIA, KID, etc.
But if you want a life outside of constant study of opening theory, then a narrowly based repetoire (perhaps the Center Counter vs. e4, and QGA vs. d4) will probably work better.
For example, the OP mentioned that he played the Slav. The're a short book by Andy Soltis from the 1980s, "A Black Defense for the Rest of your Chess Career." It suggests that you play the Slav vs. d4,c4, and the Caro-Kann versus e4, i.e. play just two openings against EVERYTHING that white throws at you. Both systems use basically the same pawn structure.
Conversely, ala Botvinnik, you can play the Pirc (vs. e4) and the KID (vs. d4,c4), against everything too. But these two opening systems have gigantic theories, but they use basically the same pawn structure.
You can, of course, play both sides of the Ruy, or the Sicilian, but be prepared to buy dozens of books for each. These theories are also huge and constantly changing. Great chess, but lots of continual work just on openings. Takes years to get good with them, and everyone else is studying them too.
So save your yourself lots of time, and by-pass your opponents preparation by playing a narrow repetoire based system instead.
I assume you play the Center Counter to by-pass lots of opening theory. Your choice of a (repetoire) defense against white playing d4,c4 should perhaps following the same line of reasoning.
But if really want "slashing tactics" from the Black side, then by all means, starting buying books on "Gambit Play for Black." And plan to buy a few extra bookshelves as well.
On balance, you can learn one or two repetoire based systems to play with the Black pieces (as described above), and then just turn around and use those same two systems from the white side. Presto, your opening preparation is done. So move onto studying middle game, endgame themes. Your study time for opening (while still requiring lots of time) is thereby minimized.
Tony Kosten, in "The Dynamic English" @1995, recommends just such a reversed Black system with the white pieces, i.e. play the Botvinnik Formation of the Sicilian with the white pieces, against EVERYTHING that black plays.
This method of using narrow repetoires with black, and reversed black systems with the white pieces is (I think) the easiest way to get above USCF 1800. After that, you can change your "opening-sytem-business-model" whenever the mood suits you.
*I edited the text above to make it read clearly.
@kborg, those are very sensible comments.
As a lower-rated player you definitely play by a different set of rules than a master. The argument that a certain opening is theoretically better than another falls flat on its face if the player is unable to understand it or constantly leaves pieces hanging.
The Soltis/Botvinnik approaches that you describe are very good ones because lower-rated players will do a much better job if they're always using a familiar formation and they are used to the kinds of positions that arise. They will still make mistakes, but they will be in a better position to learn from those mistakes because similar situations are likely to arise again in the future.
Don't believe in objectively best opening either. Objectively a position is either drawn or won. Software like Houdini finds resources in apparantly difficult positions, thats how it gets its name. So software is showing practically any opening is playable. So what remains is what the human player feels comfortable playing. Back in 2003 gave up playing Nimzo/Queens Indian combination because hadn't been playing OTB much, it was a lot of theory to cover especially with lines were white didn't play c4 to deal with too. Lots of different pawn structures to master, this is sort of a strength of the Nimzo too, but when limited in time... The main reason though was the classical Qc2 was very popular. A typical solid d4 club player choice avoiding pawn structure weaknesses like the plague. At the time chould not find a response really liked, that gave lively play but felt sound. Again if I chould calculate like Houdini might have found one of the more unbalancing lines like Qc2 Nc6 playable, but I don't and therefore didn;t.
Recently in top level play 1.d4 Nf6 2c4 e6 3Nc3 Bb4 4Qc2 0.0 5a3 BxN 6QxN d5 has appeared were black has been able to use development lead in lines like 7Bg5 c5 8d4xc5 d4. So feeling it might be worth the work of taking up Nimzo again.