If i choose to play Taimanov Sicilian vs 1.e4 what should i play against 1.d4

I have to admit in tens of thousands (may be even hundred thousand) of games i played slow blitz bullet etc. there is greater than 0 possibility that i might not played a single taimanov sicilian before. But for some reason i wanted to give it a try, learn it and use it for a year at least. I dont remember a time i was winning a single game when i tried 1.e4 e5 with black, then i tried 1e4 e6 with slightly better (may be %10 rate) In some part of my life i met with dragon, i loved it and it loved me. I started to win against much higher rated opponents. Faster the games better my ratio. I was either sacrifice exchange on c3 and mate or after he parried my threats and i parried his i was pushing my kingside till one of my little pieces become a new queen. Although i even scored good against way higher opponents, i remember many draws against much lower opponents as well. When i started to see Maroczy's i traited it and leaved it in favor of modern-pirc etc. For approximately a year i started playing pirc, modern and french totally random way, not knowing theory, changing my set ups every game, not even analyzing it deeply. To my suprise i am getting better results (some results against higher opposition but much stable wins against lower opposition)

On the other side of coin i am losing straight to 1.d4 (not in blitz but in OTB). Having white side i push 1.d4 confidently (After switching 1.d4 from 1.e4 my score went up to %65s from %40s) Not getting anything from KI and Slav, getting very little from Grünfeld i started experimenting with Benoni with bad results. (i tried Nimzo, QI and QGD only in online blitz matches)

So far i cant say i know any good theory on any openning (may be just a little on dragon as black and Kings Indian with white) I decide to work on Taimanov varition of sicilian as a main weapon ( I played once Kan varition on board although i hardly got draw i liked the opening) I want an opening similar to Taimanov with similar mentality, structure, play style etc to work on simultaneously. Not symmetric, some flexibility in structure, deep in position, no theorethical king attacks, winning chances for both sides and hopefully half games reach endgames (while lots of play left on board) or some queen middlegames may be a little sharp but not too much.

Sorry for my too long post, hope i get some help.

For people who dont want to read all of these.

I decided to learn Taimanov sicilian vs 1.e4

I also want to learn an opening against 1.d4 with similarities to Taimanov

Thank you

GM Alexander Delchev has written books on the Taimanov, the Queen's Gambit Accepted, and the Grünfeld.

I think the Nimzo/Bogo/Queens Indian complex has similarities with the Sicilian Taimanov, as both are highly flexible hypermodern openings and initially share the d7/e6/f7 pawn structure (which among other things implies that Black's light-squared bishop is usually developed to b7 or a6).

you should play f5

Thanks for all advices, yeap Delchev's book is main reason why i want to try Taimanov. He advices learn Taimanov, Kan, Sveshnikov and using transpositions but since he doesnt cover Sveshnikov only Kan and Taimanov for some time it will be enough for me.

The QGA is NOT a tactical opening.  "Dry" is the best way to describe the QGA.  White has a couple of options that might liven it up slightly, but it's not by any means tactical like FofS makes it sound like it is.  While I have used it extremely rarely as Black, I've played numerous games from the White side of the QGA.

You'd be better going the Nimzo-Indian route.   If there is one thing the Taimanov and Nimzo-Indian have in common, it's the flexibility.  I personally don't care for the Nimzo despite being a Taimanov player, but those looking for similarity, that would be the one I'd recommend.  You would also need something against 3.Nf3 (either Queen's Indian, Bogo Indian, QGD, or Modern Benoni) and a line against the Catalan (3.g3).

I prefer the Taimanov for its solidity more than its flexibility, which is why I play the Old Indian as Black rather than the Nimzo-Indian.

Delchev's latest book only covers Taimanov and Kan lines were Nc6 delayed or obmitted entirely. The sveshnikov isn't in the picture at all. The idea is can dodge poeple's preparation by switching between two approaches. Doesn't really work for me because not comfortable in hedgehog c4, and e4 positions.

Using French and Taimanov works better for me. In that case can consider 1.d4 e6 2c4 Bb4ch. Eingorn suggests a rep with that.

Otherwise I don't think there is a 1.d4 defense directly comparable with Taimanov.

You talk like I never played the opening before and have no clue what I'm talking about.  If you learn to read what is written and not whatever junk is going on in that head of yours, you would realize that I said there are lines for White that lead to a more lively position, but two things make your logic faulty:

1) There is not only 1 line that leads to a Technical Game.  Technical and Positional are not the same thing.  Technical chess is what I referred to in my original post as "Dry".

2) Black has no control over it.  It's White that chooses the nature of the line played.  3.Nc3 leads to a lot of wild attacks.  3.Nf3 leads to many "Dry", "Technical" positions (Not EVERY game that features 3.Nf3, but a large majority).  3.e4 is not quite as wild as 3.Nc3, but far more aggressive than 3.Nf3.  3.e3 is nothing more than a Transposition to 3.Nf3 with Additional Options for Black.  Black can deviate, or make it so that White has nothing better than a Transposition.  Because of this, I don't condone 3.e3 against the QGA.  The other 3 are a matter of taste.  I once upon a time played 3.e4.  Never cared for 3.Nc3.  3.Nf3 is what I play against the QGA, and if Black is looking for a wild game, he ain't getting it!

Guess what, if you can't deal with Maroczy Bind type positions (c4 and e4 by White), the Taimanov isn't for you!

After 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 e6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nc6, while 5.Nc3 is the "main line", White also has 5.Nb5 (5.c4 is not good because of 5...Nf6 6.Nc3 Bb4! and already Black is minisculy better).

Black's only decent response to 5.Nb5 is 5...d6, where now, because d6 blocks the Bishop from going to b4, White can play 6.Bf4 (The Bishop Probing Variation, enticing ...e5 and weakening d5), or low and behold, 6.c4, The Maroczy Bind!

So if the Maroczy bind is  your problem (c4 and e4 by White), the Taimanov doesn't get you out of the woods!

Ulf Andersson played the Taimanov and Nimzo-Indian. Taimanov considered his opening to be the most purely positional of the major Sicilian defenses. If you really enjoy the Taimanov, look for similar openings that exploit long-term structural advantages as Black.

Yes, ok in the Taimanov only allow Hedgehog type position in the old main line with 5Nb5. In that line white has Na3, and black can pretty much force an equalising d5 later. Prefer not to allow the full range off hedgehog type positions that can occur after 4...a6. Also find some of Delchev's recommendations after 4..a6 5Nc3 quite strange.

I'll try again: choose a "hero" to emulate. Find someone who you think epitomizes a hero of the Taimanov and find out what they play against 1.d4. Many such heroes play

The Nimzo-Indian

It's just my preference, but liked better all the lines with early nc6 more. For example didn't like 1.e4 c5 2nf3 e6 3d4 pxp 4nxp a6 5bd3 the lines with d6, and nb-d7 which I think he covers in the Kan moveorder. Other books on Kan prefer other stuff like bc5, which he doesn't like.

In his earlier book "the safest sicilian" only covered 4...nc6, so guess more used to that now.

If you play early Nc6 it is taimanov either you play 4...Nc6 or 4...a6 and 5...Nc6. So its normal he doesnt include when he is showing Kan variation. He shows both Kan and Taimanov against various white set-up he doesnt say which one you should prefer. In some places he recommends somethings like you should prefer Kan varition here because you can learn all the variation just in 2 hours and you are play ready but same is true for white as well so later after you gain some experience with this variation you may want to change it with taimanov which is strategically more complex etc.

I like there are moves he doesnt mention where white (or black) can take free pawn but does two different moves neither gains anything. I assume there is at least initiative and use them as calculation (or analysis) problem. After some hours of work in these positions (although i couldnt find engine's best moves) i could found at least getting material back with much better position. I work book without computer help mostly and trust author's analysis.