HELP. I need defense to 1.d4

Moves typically come naturally with the Queen's Indian.  Develop the knight first, if a3 then leave the bishop on e7 and don't give it up as you'll be horribly weak on the dark squares, fianchetto the light squared bishop, control those central squares, etc.  Like any opening you'll need to know some theory (especially against Bg5 lines) but it's good overall for natural intuitive play. 

I like the Slav. Check out this video if you want to learn more about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnK3kuFs5Oc

I think there are a lot of good options though, like the Nimzo and the QGD but for the Slav is the best because I like it the most.

IMO the easiest thing to learn would probably be 1.d4 e6 2.c4 Bb4+, followed by playing chess. Of course, the French is then a requirement in your repertoire, but OP seems to already have it there, so it all works out!

A swing and a miss!  

Slav is not better than the QGDizzle

What are the criteria for an opening to end in -izzle?

Yes, great to get into for white.

My database gives 50% win for white and 25% for black.

Many people expect to refute a gambit straight away, and when this gambit cannot be refuted (like the Schara) then there are the enthusiasts that think it's good to play it. Not so. It's not refuted, but you're simply playing with a pawn down.

It might be fun for internet blitz, where you can get a quick win with some tactics that you're more familiar with.

But if you play OTB chess, then your tactic potential is dramatically reduced (becase your opponent has a ton of time to be careful) and you'll have to spend the next 2-3 hours playing a game of chess with a pawn down. Not fun at all. That's why you don't see this kind of trash in OTB tournaments.

Mind = blown. This'll totally be the new system for judging merits of openings : comparing exchange variations!

Quite an ignorant statement, but I must admit I was hoping someone would contest me on my recommendation of the Budapest so we could discuss this, albeit not in such an ignorant way. There are basic plans inherent in all variations of the Budapest. In the Adler variation the plan can often be to work up a kingside attack via the rook lift, in the Alekhine and Rubenstein variations, playing against doubled and weak pawns.

Black doesn't normally give up the bishop pair in any of the variations except the Rubinstein, and even there he doesn't have to, as there are two good ways to avoid it, one idea was come up with by GM Pavel Blatney. But even surrendering the bishop pair white only gets a minuscule advantage, and if we're talking below 2000 level then that advantage is basically nothing because players at this level can't extract an advantage out of a bishop pair like an IM/GM could.

I have a winning record with the Budapest as black and it's definitely one of the funer openings I play. I had two games in a row with it where I was able to trap the queens of players higher rated than myself right out of the opening, and those kingside attacks in the Adler variation are so much fun to play, there is something especially enjoyable about playing black and putting white on the defensive the whole game rather than vice versa.

The only problem with the Budapest as far as I can tell is that if white plays 2. Nf3 then you can't use it, and must instead play something like the King's Indian. So to use the Budapest you actually have to learn at least 2 openings against d4.

I've been meaning to look into the Fajarowicz more, I recently was browsing Amazon and saw there's actually an entire book devoted just to the Fajarowicz. Perhaps I've been too hasty in writing off this variation, however, GM Mamedyarov doesn't use the Fajarowicz and IM Timothy Taylor in his recent book on the Budapest says that the Fajarowicz is bad as well.

Yeah, I was going to go with what Mainline said, play ...e6 and then ...Bb4 because you're already a frenchie. That's a good choice.

And HarryZ is correct. One of the main ideas of the Slav is to take cd5 away from White because the resulting positions will leave an open c-file which will beckon exchanges on the c-file and for the most part rule out levers. Getting rid of your opponent's options is what you want to do. I think absolutely speaking, the Slav is superior thanks in large part to the exchange variation (or really how it fares if White were to simply take).

But in the end I stick by my claim that you should choose what you like. I knew one guy who played the Fajarowicz just so that his opponents would either go crazy or almost throw up at it. He won so many games with it because many didn't respect it and many couldn't bring themselves to look at it. The only way I beat him was by playing a3 on the first move.

As a former French player, I can tell you that the most similar QP opening to the French is the King's Indian Defense.

Think about it.  Take the Winawer and the Classical King's Indian.  Both feature severely blocked pawn centers, and you typically attack the side that your pawns point towards.  So the French, that would be the Queenside, the King's Indian, the Kingside.

Comparing other variations: 

Exchange French, Exchange KID - both pretty drawish.

KIA, Fianchetto KID - Again, not "identical", but not much different.

etc etc

Not sure lol, it seems to flow nice with QGD though. 

And @harryz, who cares about the exchange variations?  Black is not obliged to play through that Qc2/Bd3/Ne2 stuff after Bg5, 3...Be7 instead 3...Nf6 basically dodges the main positional idea of the exchange QGD.  Plus the Slav and QGD don't automatically lead to same positions if exchange variations are not chosen by White, in fact they usually don't.  

You are quite the individual thinker.  

What if 3.Nf3?  Dun dun dun....

I think a game is trying for the next game.. every openings have lots of grins.. but the more you play the more you will find grins.. so you try an opening with the less branches.. I recommend you:

1.d4 e6 2. c4 Bb4+ 3.Nc3 Nf6(3.Bd2 B*d2)

if your opponent move its Knight so you have an easy game and DONT affraid of openings.. train openings

I've had some fun games playing the King's Indian Defense as a reply to 1.d4

@Nireida-um. Isn't your first example ("very original, but solid") an QGD: Semi-Tarrasch?

(For that matter, so's the Slav...er...part of the QGDizzle. Heh)

@richie (i like ur name btw)-an Tarrasch is 3. ... c5. An Semi (heh) is 3. ... Nf6 4. Nf3 c5-which is the variation the poster quoted.

8)