Fun Lines in the QGD

I have been looking at a lot of lines in the QGD lately (Tartakower, Lasker defense, orthodox defense, cambridge springs, etc...) and I was wondering what people think about them. Which line is your favorite? which gives black the best winning chances?

Also does anyone play the Queen's Gambit Accepted? I was looking at that too it seems like it could be an interesting surpise.

I think you need to try openings out for yourself. Don't be fooled into thinking the winning statistics here at the Game Explorer or in any other DB have to apply to you and your opponents, because they don't. Offhand the QGA is a good place to start IMHO there's much less theory to it than in the QGD which has 2 major branches - the orthodox lines beginning with 2...e6 and Slav/Semi-Slav lines beginning with 2...c6, and each branch has several major openings with lots more major variations. 

There are different variations of the QGA but IMHO they have more in common with each other than all the major lines in the QGD.

For lots more info type Queens Gambit Accepted into a search engine and I noticed several (at least) YouTube videos about it 

http://www.chess.com/article/search?keyword=queens+gambit+accepted&cat_id=

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

http://www.ez-net.com/~mephisto/understanding%20Queen's%20gambit.html

http://www.thechesswebsite.com/queens-gambit/

the QGA looks interesting, but in my games I don't always do as well because of 3.Nc3. that line always bothers em. when I play I usually play Lasker defense or Tartakower. 

??? You don't do well because of 3.Nc3? This sounds like an over-simplification to put it mildly. Is there any possibility after 3.Nc3 your opponents have just outplayed you, or you have had problems in middlegames or endgames after coming out of the opening OK?  I think you need to start looking at your QGD games more critically and see if you can't come up with more specific problem areas than just 3.Nc3  (weak openings, middlegames and/or endgames, bad tactics or failure to capitalize on your opponents mistakes etc etc) 

BUT at any rate you should like the QGA most major lines for White begin with 3.Nf3 - although 3.Nc3 or 3.e4 are both playable

no I mean 3.Nc3 in the QGA! 

You have no choice if the game leads to a QGA that is up to your opponent.

No way to force your opponent into orthodox defense. People think the Queens Gambit is all fun. It requires a lot of work and time to put into playing it. After my first 3 months of it i thought i was the man. I was brought to reality real quick. I referenced all these sites and they give you half the info you need and Black gets all the info they need to strike.

The theory alone will take a while to learn use it correctly. Any there are times you have to trash the Queens GAmbit as your opponent is using a line of play that will most likely get you crushed if you try to hold the main line of the QG. Move order can make the QG boring after playing with it a couple months. And the first couple moves 3-8 will nothing you can surprise an opponent with if they seen the QG enough.

Fun? Maybe to a beginner. I had to learn so many defense and their main line and learn some of the variations to those defenses. Which many sites do not list when you reference the QG.

Now it is fun when your opponent plays lines that you know by heart. Which takes some serious time to put in. Which brings me to my real point. I learned to focus on using my pieces to attack and defend as i will waste 10 years learning all the lines and still might not improve. Now that is fun as i can play alomst any opening if i learn the use  of pieces and where to attack and when to attack.

White can try playing 3.e4 and it looks stronger. It's good if it can be played before ...Nf6. 3.Nc3 is not immediately necessary.

Actually I was talking about the QG from black's perspective

I advocate transposing from the starting position of the QGD into the semi-slav. This can lead to some exciting positions like one's that arise from the Meran variation, the Shirov- Shabalov attack, and the Botvinnik variation. These variations can still give black as feasible chance at scoring the full point. However, white can deviate with the anti-meran (6. Qc2) and play in a highly positional, Karpovian manner. I'm sure you wouldn't appreciate this as black.

RybkjaShredder is absolutely correct. I therefore look to the Indian systems to black players who are looking for decent winning chances. The Grunfeld or the King's indian may be what you are looking for.

I don't see what's wrong with, say, the Tartakower. Although in master games it is mostly a draw, black still has good play and can get a good endgame

it is absolutely sound stuff, very solid. I prefer the Grunfeld when going for the win however.

Your clearly on the wrong thread and have no clue. Just commenting to comment as you only win 33% games and only played 72 and your opponent has crushed you on Black playing against you with  1 d4.

They took you to school by winning 61.9 of their games.