Defense against d4

ThrillerFan

The latter due to soundness.  As a former King's Indian player, I see the following as a MAJOR problem for Black:

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.Be2 e5 7.O-O Nc6 8.d5 Ne7 9.Ne1 Nd7 10.Be3 f5 11.f3 f4 12.Bf2 g5 13.Rc1!

 

I have seen 13...a6 recommended, 13...Ng6, 13...Rf6.  None of them appear to be satisfactory for Black and the c-file is a major problem.

bong711

Go for KID and GD. Not necessarily better, but they offer plenty of opportunities for tactical play.

najdorf96

Indeed @Fan isn't 13. ... Rf6 a cool retort though? ie if 14. b4 Rh6 15. Nd3 (15. c5 a6 16. cd6 cd6 17. g4 fg3 18. hg3 Ng6 slight plus for black) Qe8 16. Be1 Rg6 equalizes? Anyways I do agree QGD systems are solid (I'm not a big fan of Tarrasch, QGA, Slavish stuff) as the theory is extensive but will serve you well in the future. The Nimzo I don't play at all although it does have ties to QGD structures. I dunno. It never really appealed to me but I know it's cool too. Best wishes

chadnilsen
najdorf96 wrote:

Indeed @Fan isn't 13. ... Rf6 a cool retort though? ie if 14. b4 Rh6 15. Nd3 (15. c5 a6 16. cd6 cd6 17. g4 fg3 18. hg3 Ng6 slight plus for black) Qe8 16. Be1 Rg6 equalizes? Anyways I do agree QGD systems are solid (I'm not a big fan of Tarrasch, QGA, Slavish stuff) as the theory is extensive but will serve you well in the future. The Nimzo I don't play at all although it does have ties to QGD structures. I dunno. It never really appealed to me but I know it's cool too. Best wishes

Might want to edit the " @Fan". That takes you to the wrong profile.

najdorf96

cool my friend. I just assumed in this thread he (ThrillerFan) would know I was replying to him since I was elaborating on the variation he stated. Thank you all the same. (And no, I will not be editing-peace)

pfren

13...Rf6 is recommended in a few opening manuals, but it seems that Black has certain issues after it.

But 13...Ng6, plus a ton of book lines following, still is perfectly acceptable.

Yigor

Wrong title: I can't believe that the unique MAJOR problem for black vs 1. d4 appears only in 1 line at 25th ply. blitz.pngtongue.png

Ashvapathi

QGD, QGA, slav lines are doing very badly for black statistically according to big database of chess365. KID and Grunfeld and even Benoni are better tries for black.

And those stats are not surprising to me because whenever I played d5 against d4, I felt really constrained. Somehow, it seemed like the position favoured white specially in Queens gambit. And the stats seem to back that up.

It seems to me that QGA, QGD, and slav are just like e4-e5 mainlines for black... bad. Black has to memorize tons of lines to eke out a hard fought draw.

I was thinking about this and I have a theory:

e4-e5 and d4-d5(specially Queens Gambit) are bad for black because black is fighting for the centre in the opening. But, black can't win the fight for the centre because white is a tempo ahead. White can reach the centre faster than black. White can always bring one extra piece to centre. So, it is almost like the centre is one step closer to the white than black. So, fighting for the centre or in centre during the opening is a bad proposition for black.

Look at the openings that are successful for black: Sicilian and KID. What do they have in common? They don't fight for the centre (no e5 or d5 ) in first 5 moves. (I know sveshikov is an exception)

So, e5 or d5 are better for black after it has been prepared a bit and after developing some pieces. If e5 or d5 is played too early (like the first move) then black has a difficult task of protecting that pawn in centre from white's attack even before black has developed fully.  The more black delays playing e5 or d5, more poison e5 or d5 acquire for black. Best example would be a position like hedgehog.

pfren
Ashvapathi έγραψε:

QGD, QGA, slav lines are doing very badly for black statistically according to big database of chess365. KID and Grunfeld and even Benoni are better tries for black.

And those stats are not surprising to me because whenever I played d5 against d4, I felt really constrained. Somehow, it seemed like the position favoured white specially in Queens gambit. And the stats seem to back that up.

It seems to me that QGA, QGD, and slav are just like e4-e5 mainlines for black... bad. Black has to memorize tons of lines to eke out a hard fought draw.

I was thinking about this and I have a theory:

e4-e5 and d4-d5(specially Queens Gambit) are bad for black because black is fighting for the centre in the opening. But, black can't win the fight for the centre because white is a tempo ahead. White can reach the centre faster than black. White can always bring one extra piece to centre. So, it is almost like the centre is one step closer to the white than black. So, fighting for the centre or in centre during the opening is a bad proposition for black.

Look at the openings that are successful for black: Sicilian and KID. What do they have in common? They don't fight for the centre (no e5 or d5 ) in first 5 moves. (I know sveshikov is an exception)

So, e5 or d5 are better for black after it has been prepared a bit and after developing some pieces. If e5 or d5 is played too early (like the first move) then black has a difficult task of protecting that pawn in centre from white's attack even before black has developed fully.  The more black delays playing e5 or d5, more poison e5 or d5 acquire for black. Best example would be a position like hedgehog.

 

315 words for THAT is too many. Actually nobody will care reading THAT after the first couple of sentences.

You can say nonsense using a lot less.

endomorphic
Yigor wrote:

Wrong title: I can't believe that the unique MAJOR problem for black vs 1. d4 appears only in 1 line at 25th ply.

It's autism.

Ashvapathi
pfren wrote:
Ashvapathi έγραψε:

QGD, QGA, slav lines are doing very badly for black statistically according to big database of chess365. KID and Grunfeld and even Benoni are better tries for black.

And those stats are not surprising to me because whenever I played d5 against d4, I felt really constrained. Somehow, it seemed like the position favoured white specially in Queens gambit. And the stats seem to back that up.

It seems to me that QGA, QGD, and slav are just like e4-e5 mainlines for black... bad. Black has to memorize tons of lines to eke out a hard fought draw.

I was thinking about this and I have a theory:

e4-e5 and d4-d5(specially Queens Gambit) are bad for black because black is fighting for the centre in the opening. But, black can't win the fight for the centre because white is a tempo ahead. White can reach the centre faster than black. White can always bring one extra piece to centre. So, it is almost like the centre is one step closer to the white than black. So, fighting for the centre or in centre during the opening is a bad proposition for black.

Look at the openings that are successful for black: Sicilian and KID. What do they have in common? They don't fight for the centre (no e5 or d5 ) in first 5 moves. (I know sveshikov is an exception)

So, e5 or d5 are better for black after it has been prepared a bit and after developing some pieces. If e5 or d5 is played too early (like the first move) then black has a difficult task of protecting that pawn in centre from white's attack even before black has developed fully.  The more black delays playing e5 or d5, more poison e5 or d5 acquire for black. Best example would be a position like hedgehog.

 

315 words for THAT is too many. Actually nobody will care reading THAT after the first couple of sentences.

You can say nonsense using a lot less.

 

This kind of rudeness and arrogance is unnecessary and uncalled for. If you have a point to make, then make it properly with supporting arguments. If you can't be bothered to do it, then don't do it. Why should you dismiss someone else's points without giving any reason? You think I said nonsense in that post, then you should specify what was the nonsense and explain why.

And you are actually implying that you are dismissing my post without even reading it fully. Then, you have the gall to say that no one else will read it. Neither I nor you know if anyone will read it or not. But, if someone wishes to reply to a post, then they should read it.

pfren
Ashvapathi έγραψε:
pfren wrote:
Ashvapathi έγραψε:

QGD, QGA, slav lines are doing very badly for black statistically according to big database of chess365. KID and Grunfeld and even Benoni are better tries for black.

And those stats are not surprising to me because whenever I played d5 against d4, I felt really constrained. Somehow, it seemed like the position favoured white specially in Queens gambit. And the stats seem to back that up.

It seems to me that QGA, QGD, and slav are just like e4-e5 mainlines for black... bad. Black has to memorize tons of lines to eke out a hard fought draw.

I was thinking about this and I have a theory:

e4-e5 and d4-d5(specially Queens Gambit) are bad for black because black is fighting for the centre in the opening. But, black can't win the fight for the centre because white is a tempo ahead. White can reach the centre faster than black. White can always bring one extra piece to centre. So, it is almost like the centre is one step closer to the white than black. So, fighting for the centre or in centre during the opening is a bad proposition for black.

Look at the openings that are successful for black: Sicilian and KID. What do they have in common? They don't fight for the centre (no e5 or d5 ) in first 5 moves. (I know sveshikov is an exception)

So, e5 or d5 are better for black after it has been prepared a bit and after developing some pieces. If e5 or d5 is played too early (like the first move) then black has a difficult task of protecting that pawn in centre from white's attack even before black has developed fully.  The more black delays playing e5 or d5, more poison e5 or d5 acquire for black. Best example would be a position like hedgehog.

 

315 words for THAT is too many. Actually nobody will care reading THAT after the first couple of sentences.

You can say nonsense using a lot less.

 

This kind of rudeness and arrogance is unnecessary and uncalled for. If you have a point to make, then make it properly with supporting arguments. If you can't be bothered to do it, then don't do it. Why should you dismiss someone else's points without giving any reason? You think I said nonsense in that post, then you should specify what was the nonsense and explain why.

And you are actually implying that you are dismissing my post without even reading it fully. Then, you have the gall to say that no one else will read it. Neither I nor you know if anyone will read it or not. But, if someone wishes to reply to a post, then they should read it.

 

Who would need to read a post by an anonymous, officially unrated wannabe chessplayer who right from the start claims that 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 are bad?

Sure, the world if full of stupid people, but not THAT stupid...

Loudcolor

pfren is who

Ashvapathi
pfren wrote:
Ashvapathi έγραψε:
pfren wrote:
Ashvapathi έγραψε:

QGD, QGA, slav lines are doing very badly for black statistically according to big database of chess365. KID and Grunfeld and even Benoni are better tries for black.

And those stats are not surprising to me because whenever I played d5 against d4, I felt really constrained. Somehow, it seemed like the position favoured white specially in Queens gambit. And the stats seem to back that up.

It seems to me that QGA, QGD, and slav are just like e4-e5 mainlines for black... bad. Black has to memorize tons of lines to eke out a hard fought draw.

I was thinking about this and I have a theory:

e4-e5 and d4-d5(specially Queens Gambit) are bad for black because black is fighting for the centre in the opening. But, black can't win the fight for the centre because white is a tempo ahead. White can reach the centre faster than black. White can always bring one extra piece to centre. So, it is almost like the centre is one step closer to the white than black. So, fighting for the centre or in centre during the opening is a bad proposition for black.

Look at the openings that are successful for black: Sicilian and KID. What do they have in common? They don't fight for the centre (no e5 or d5 ) in first 5 moves. (I know sveshikov is an exception)

So, e5 or d5 are better for black after it has been prepared a bit and after developing some pieces. If e5 or d5 is played too early (like the first move) then black has a difficult task of protecting that pawn in centre from white's attack even before black has developed fully.  The more black delays playing e5 or d5, more poison e5 or d5 acquire for black. Best example would be a position like hedgehog.

 

315 words for THAT is too many. Actually nobody will care reading THAT after the first couple of sentences.

You can say nonsense using a lot less.

 

This kind of rudeness and arrogance is unnecessary and uncalled for. If you have a point to make, then make it properly with supporting arguments. If you can't be bothered to do it, then don't do it. Why should you dismiss someone else's points without giving any reason? You think I said nonsense in that post, then you should specify what was the nonsense and explain why.

And you are actually implying that you are dismissing my post without even reading it fully. Then, you have the gall to say that no one else will read it. Neither I nor you know if anyone will read it or not. But, if someone wishes to reply to a post, then they should read it.

 

Who would need to read a post by an anonymous, officially unrated wannabe chessplayer who right from the start claims that 1.e4 e5 and 1.d4 d5 are bad?

Sure, the world if full of stupid people, but not THAT stupid...

 

Look, no one needs to read anyone's posts regardless of ratings. But, if you want to reply to a post, then yes, you have to at least read it fully before replying to it (or dismissing it). And you don't know whether others are going to read or not. And if no one is going to read it, then why are you bothered to reply to it?

It seems you are more interested in showing off your rating rather than arguing on basis of merits of the case.

ThrillerFan
Yigor wrote:

Wrong title: I can't believe that the unique MAJOR problem for black vs 1. d4 appears only in 1 line at 25th ply.

No, the title is right.  My post is not the original.  The original was apparently removed.  Someone asked which is better, KID and Grunfeld or QGD and Nimzo and why?  I responded the latter and the reason why.  The title is not mine!

SebastianAdams1

i do QID and nimzo if avalible, i dont face that problem very much

ThrillerFan
SebastianAdams1 wrote:

i do QID and nimzo if avalible, i dont face that problem very much

 

Of late, I have been going for the following as Black against d4:

1.d4 e6 2.c4

   -- 2.e4 d5 - French Defense

2...Nf6 3.Nf3

   -- 3.Nc3 Bb4 - Nimzo-Indian Defense

   -- 3.g3 d5 - Catalan

3...d5 4.Nc3

   -- 4.cxd5 - Exchange QGD but White is committed to Nf3 lines, no Nge2.

4...c6 5.e3

   -- 5.Bg5 Nbd7 6.e3 Qa5 - Cambridge Springs

5...Nbd7 - Meran/Anti-Meran

my137thaccount
ThrillerFan wrote:
SebastianAdams1 wrote:

i do QID and nimzo if avalible, i dont face that problem very much

 

Of late, I have been going for the following as Black against d4:

1.d4 e6 2.c4

   -- 2.e4 d5 - French Defense

2...Nf6 3.Nf3

   -- 3.Nc3 Bb4 - Nimzo-Indian Defense

   -- 3.g3 d5 - Catalan

3...d5 4.Nc3

   -- 4.cxd5 - Exchange QGD but White is committed to Nf3 lines, no Nge2.

4...c6 5.e3

   -- 5.Bg5 Nbd7 6.e3 Qa5 - Cambridge Springs

5...Nbd7 - Meran/Anti-Meran

This is literally the most difficult repertoire possible against 1.d4, worse than the Grunfeld

ThrillerFan
my137thaccount wrote:
ThrillerFan wrote:
SebastianAdams1 wrote:

i do QID and nimzo if avalible, i dont face that problem very much

 

Of late, I have been going for the following as Black against d4:

1.d4 e6 2.c4

   -- 2.e4 d5 - French Defense

2...Nf6 3.Nf3

   -- 3.Nc3 Bb4 - Nimzo-Indian Defense

   -- 3.g3 d5 - Catalan

3...d5 4.Nc3

   -- 4.cxd5 - Exchange QGD but White is committed to Nf3 lines, no Nge2.

4...c6 5.e3

   -- 5.Bg5 Nbd7 6.e3 Qa5 - Cambridge Springs

5...Nbd7 - Meran/Anti-Meran

This is literally the most difficult repertoire possible against 1.d4, worse than the Grunfeld

 

It is actually not as hard as you think.

 

For starters, my main line of defense against e4 is the French, so nothing added there.

There are also a lot of lines avoided!

  • The Trompowsky
  • Veresov (1.d4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 there is no Bg5)
  • Exchange Slav
  • Exchange QGD with Nge2
  • Slow Slav
  • Even the Torre is avoidable if 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.c4 (or 3.e3 or 3.Bf4) Nf6
  • QID and Bogo theory.
  • Botvinnik, Moscow, and Anti-Moscow

So it sounds like a lot because it is bits and pieces of openings with different names, but it is no more than the straight NID/QID and having to deal with Catalan, Colle, London, Torre, Trompowsky, and Veresov.

endomorphic

1..e6 is what I like to play too against 1.d4. I got that idea from the Ginger GM learning ideas in the Dutch defense. He used one of his games as an example where he did just that. If 2.c4 then I would just enter the Dutch or if white plays 2.e4 then I'd go with the french.