Talking about the QGD: Check my blog.
https://www.chess.com/blog/pfren/playing-1-d5-d5-a-classical-repertoire
Yeah definitely check out pfrens blog post. The book he's talking about contains the above mentioned variation. Thx pfren!
A lot of good advice here, I'm inclined to give the QGD another shot.
Just one thing, the "QGD" Alekhine played against capa looked like a semi-slav for me, rather than a pure QGD, but I may be confused.
A lot of good advice here, I'm inclined to give the QGD another shot.
Just one thing, the "QGD" Alekhine played against capa looked like a semi-slav for me, rather than a pure QGD, but I may be confused.
Do you mean the World Championship match? The played a bunch of Queens Gambit declined there.
Talking about the QGD: Check my blog.
https://www.chess.com/blog/pfren/playing-1-d5-d5-a-classical-repertoire
Yeah definitely check out pfrens blog post. The book he's talking about contains the above mentioned variation. Thx pfren!
Actually the book suggests playing ...Nbd7 before ...h6 and ...0-0, to avoid a few Bxf6 related lines.
I have played such a line as Black recently against a higher rated IM, and had no trouble dealing with it.
Talking about the QGD: Check my blog.
https://www.chess.com/blog/pfren/playing-1-d5-d5-a-classical-repertoire
Yeah definitely check out pfrens blog post. The book he's talking about contains the above mentioned variation. Thx pfren!
Actually the book suggests playing ...Nbd7 before ...h6 and ...0-0, to avoid a few Bxf6 related lines.
I have played such a line as Black recently against a higher rated IM, and had no trouble dealing with it.
Ah, I see playing Nbd7 reduces the amount of lines you have to learn. Your opponent played Qb3. Yesterday in my chess club I encountered Qc2 followed by long castle. My weakness on h6 broke my neck after an attack with h4, g4-g5. What would you recommend against that setup. The attack of my opponent seemed so threatening but I can't believe that this is the refutation of a respected opening. More likely I'm a patzer
I play d4 a lot and I like it when games go into QGD, and prefer it. I like the positions that arise from that and the QGA. Not a big fan of playing or playing against the KID. If my opponent tries to go into it I'll usually shake it up and play moves out of order or a little bizarre. I want to play my opponent, not a book. I know the Queen's gambits have just as much or more theory as any other d4 opening, but the games seem to be more fun. I avoid the Nimzo as well and usually play knight f3 after 2. e6, hoping for a Queen's indian. Anyway I think knowing and being able to name these different openings and variations is important, but not as important as finding an opening that fits your style and sticking with it. I think the QGD is a good place to start.
I played 7.Qc2 myself some 35 years ago for some time. I don't believe in it anymore- Black has no issues.
Here is a model game featuring delaying castling to hit white's center. Black gets a solid, symmetrical position with worse development, but he does have the bishop pair, which he returns to catch up in devlopment- and then utilizes the tiniest of advantages in great style.
Black can also deviate, e.g. instead of 9...Qa5 he can also play 9...0-0 10.Bxc4 Nbd7 with a good game.
This particular move order discourages 8.0-0-0?! due to 8...a6 9.e4 b5 10.e5 Bg5+ 11.Kb1 Bb7 (as GM Wells has played in an old game) when white has nothing to show for the pawn.
This ...dxc4 idea is also good against 7.Qb3, but I preferred to keep more pieces on the board to seek winning chances- probably a bad decision, as lately my time management is terrible.
Pfren, well played game.
Reason to play the Queen Gambit Declined is easy to play and understand than the King's Indian defense, extremely sold defense and hard to crack { look at IM pfren's game and GM Topalov and GM Alekhine, there is logic and soundness and simplicity. GM Carlsen lost to GM Anand but Carlsen use it again beat Anand, what a great testimony to the Queen's gambit declined, soundness and hard to beat, what more do you want from a defense.
I play d4 a lot and I like it when games go into QGD, and prefer it. I like the positions that arise from that and the QGA. Not a big fan of playing or playing against the KID. If my opponent tries to go into it I'll usually shake it up and play moves out of order or a little bizarre. I want to play my opponent, not a book. I know the Queen's gambits have just as much or more theory as any other d4 opening, but the games seem to be more fun. I avoid the Nimzo as well and usually play knight f3 after 2. e6, hoping for a Queen's indian. Anyway I think knowing and being able to name these different openings and variations is important, but not as important as finding an opening that fits your style and sticking with it. I think the QGD is a good place to start.
You have not met a real expert on the Queen's Gambit Declined, going offbeat and non-book only make it easier for black to equalize and black can play for win.
I play d4 a lot and I like it when games go into QGD, and prefer it. I like the positions that arise from that and the QGA. Not a big fan of playing or playing against the KID. If my opponent tries to go into it I'll usually shake it up and play moves out of order or a little bizarre. I want to play my opponent, not a book. I know the Queen's gambits have just as much or more theory as any other d4 opening, but the games seem to be more fun. I avoid the Nimzo as well and usually play knight f3 after 2. e6, hoping for a Queen's indian. Anyway I think knowing and being able to name these different openings and variations is important, but not as important as finding an opening that fits your style and sticking with it. I think the QGD is a good place to start.
You have not met a real expert on the Queen's Gambit Declined, going offbeat and non-book only make it easier for black to equalize and black can play for win.
I agree mostly. A good player would easily win tempi and gain an advantage against a guy straying from well studied openings, there's a reason why frequently played moves are considered best. I disagree with not coming across a good QGD player. I've been destroyed plenty of times by guys who can whip off book moves with little thought in that opening. I go through phases where I'm all about mastering book moves and improving my positional understanding of the game, but I also go through phases where I'm less interested in studying and just feel like winging it. I've long since given up on mastering this game, and having fun is the only thing that keeps me interested. Planned moves well into middle game, trying to win games with slight advantages like controlling a certain square or reaching endgame a pawn up, isn't for me right now. I want to play open, puzzle like positions, and will gladly give up a tempo to get the guys that are good at studying openings out of their comfort zones.
I think that playing against a really well-prepared QGD player is a harder challenge than facing other defences to d4-c4.
I use the Modern Benoni, which is challenging, interesting and exciting, and a good way to try to play for a win. I started off with the QGA but found I drew too often. I switched to the QGD and I won more often but the games lasted too long, which was tiring in tournaments, so I switched to the MB. I would like to play the QGD again now I don't play in tournaments ... maybe Tartakower's Defence. The Minority Attack isn't dangerous at all. It's just rather tedious, like the Benko Gambit.
My personal favorites are the Nimzo, Modern Benoni, and the KID.
Also, you can just play a Double Fianchetto and take it from there.
Lots of options—try each one. See what style you enjoy the most.
I play d4 a lot and I like it when games go into QGD, and prefer it. I like the positions that arise from that and the QGA. Not a big fan of playing or playing against the KID. If my opponent tries to go into it I'll usually shake it up and play moves out of order or a little bizarre. I want to play my opponent, not a book. I know the Queen's gambits have just as much or more theory as any other d4 opening, but the games seem to be more fun. I avoid the Nimzo as well and usually play knight f3 after 2. e6, hoping for a Queen's indian. Anyway I think knowing and being able to name these different openings and variations is important, but not as important as finding an opening that fits your style and sticking with it. I think the QGD is a good place to start.
You have not met a real expert on the Queen's Gambit Declined, going offbeat and non-book only make it easier for black to equalize and black can play for win.
This is another terrible misconception amateurs (not all though) have when it comes to building a foundation: They pick highly theoretical openings and then look to go "out of book" early, totally ignorant to the fact that these moves are "out of book" since they've been proven to be inferior after literally hundreds of years of analysis in many cases. People are always looking to reinvent the wheel and creativity is one of thing things masters + have to work on to separate themselves from the pack and the theory but players my rating and below looking to trick people with bad moves just doesn't make any sense. To them it does, somehow.
I can get back to studying openings anytime. I've spent years doing it, and there's very few that I don't know at least somewhat well, as well as the plans and middle game positions that arise from them. Right now however, following a script when I play bores me. I'm cerntainly not trying to reinvent anything, just the opposite, just trying to shake it up for fun. Studying openings is a must for anyone who wants to be serious at this game, but not for someone that just feels like pushing wood and could care less about the results. I'm sure soon enough I will find the energy to get back to caring about chess improvement.
I play d4 a lot and I like it when games go into QGD, and prefer it. I like the positions that arise from that and the QGA. Not a big fan of playing or playing against the KID. If my opponent tries to go into it I'll usually shake it up and play moves out of order or a little bizarre. I want to play my opponent, not a book. I know the Queen's gambits have just as much or more theory as any other d4 opening, but the games seem to be more fun. I avoid the Nimzo as well and usually play knight f3 after 2. e6, hoping for a Queen's indian. Anyway I think knowing and being able to name these different openings and variations is important, but not as important as finding an opening that fits your style and sticking with it. I think the QGD is a good place to start.
You have not met a real expert on the Queen's Gambit Declined, going offbeat and non-book only make it easier for black to equalize and black can play for win.
This is another terrible misconception amateurs (not all though) have when it comes to building a foundation: They pick highly theoretical openings and then look to go "out of book" early, totally ignorant to the fact that these moves are "out of book" since they've been proven to be inferior after literally hundreds of years of analysis in many cases. People are always looking to reinvent the wheel and creativity is one of thing things masters + have to work on to separate themselves from the pack and the theory but players my rating and below looking to trick people with bad moves just doesn't make any sense. To them it does, somehow.
I play otb experts and masters I need a defense {QGD} that will get me out of the opening into a playable middle game; the rest is king's indian defense and modern defense against 1.d4. Against very strong players I cannot improvise and play non-book I will drift to a lost position. Queen's Gambit Declined require very little study compare to the King's Indian defense or Modern defense.
I agree with the others that the QGD is a pretty viable and safe option. I mean this opening is the opening of the World Champions! How can you go wrong with that? The king's indian is a complex opening and not every GM plays it. Only a few players like Naka (who has a pretty active and agressive style but he has now converted to queens gambit nowadays
) play the KID. Like @CoffeeAnd420 said if you have enough time you can benefit from studying both openings. You will gain knowledge in different kind of positions.
Against QG I like the following variation:
Kramnik played a bunch of games in that variation. Just look into a database.