Is QGA a good opening for black?

I'd quite like to play you otb, ThrillerFan. We seem evenly matched on paper. I'm a bit out of match practice so I'd go for a slow time control. Wonder which way it would go.

Probably would be interesting.  Plan to move to the United States anytime soon?  LOL!

I actually have a number of tournaments coming up, aside from just the local Tuesday night 1 rated game a week:

Next weekend - 5 rounds in Charlotte

July 3rd - playing in a local Quad (3-rounds)

July 10-11 - 5 rounds in Charlottesville

July 24-26 - 5 rounds in Pittsburgh

Then August tends to be a lighter month as a lot of my Fantasy Football drafts are then.

Oh really?  Laughing at me, huh?  That is why post 62 contradicts all of YOUR posts!

And whether anyone cares or not is irrelevant!  They know I am right (see post 62) and that you sound like an utter moron.

Now they may very well be tired of hearing from us about it, and may find my posts "annoying but true", but the only one that they are "laughing at" is you!  (That is, unless they are equally as stupid as you, only then might those select few be laughing AT me!)

Unlikely. I was talking to my son the other day, about whether he would like to move to the USA. He could get a job as a software director quite easily and be earning about two and a half times what he earns here but he said he had no plans to move abroad. I haven't been in the States since 84. I quite miss travelling but I've so much keeping me busy here. Of course, houses are two or three times as expensive in Silicon Valley than they are here, especially in the North of England where we are. 

I am a lot older than 9 you dimrod!  More than 5 times that!

Oh, that's right.  That much math is too complicated for you.

Also, if you are going based on what some weak computer like a 1 CPU Stockfish 10 says here on chess.com after the moves 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4, you're an idiot!

1) Computers, without an added opening book (there is no opening book on the chess.com bot), are unable to properly assess openings.  I guess the King's Indian Defense must be outright refuted based on your weak source of assessing openings!

2) EVERY response to 1.d4 will be SLIGHTLY better for White as White goes first!  The numbers on a computer are not gospel.  Even in a middlegame.  If a computer says 24.Rd1 is +0.42 and 24.Rc1 is +0.39, the first move is not necessarily better.  On a different day, it might say the first is +0.41 and the second is +0.46.  Now if it says 24.Rd1 is +0.43 and 24.Rc1 is -4.79 (Hangs to a Black Bishop on h6), this type of difference you can surely believe Rd1 is better than Rc1.

3) Numerical assessments between -1.2 and +1.2 mean nothing in the opening with no opening book built in.  You can take a computer with no opening book software built in (chessbase and Fritz do not come with opening books, they are separate), put it against itself, start with 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O and it will say +1 at move 6, but by move 20, it is something like +0.4.  What happened to White's advantage if only best moves are played?  If it really is +1 at move 6, and the best move is played by both side every time for 10 straight moves, then it should be +1 at move 16.  If it is not, I guess the computer's +1 assessment was wrong, proving my point that computer's assessments are both wrong in the opening and not to be taken as gospel!

LOL!  You just can't accept the blunt truth and so you walk away with your tail between your legs!

You got outsmarted by a 46-year old geezer!

<<<<U r clearly about 9 years old. Insulting people doesn't help anyone or help YOU prove your point. And, white is better in QGA. There is something called an analysis bar which clearly says that WHITE IS BETTER>>>>

In the QGA, black equalises within 20 to 25 moves with best play. Because black has given away the centre, it takes a little longer to equalise than in many other openings. The "score" shown on the analysis bar is just a function of the depth of search of the analysis tool, so obviously it's innaccurate.

#71
Black does not give white the center: black equalises with ...c5

The QGD is a good opening and can be played at all levels. The QGA is a good opening and can be played at all levels. The Slav is a good opening and can be played at all levels. 

If you are a beginner, you should not be studying chess theory anyhow. If you are strong enough to learn openings, any of these will be playable for you, as a main weapon, for your whole life, no matter how strong you become.

Black doesn't have to play c5. It's thought to be the best equalising method against 3. e4 but I play Nf6. There are ways of playing with Nc6 rather than c5. As white I play 3. Nf3 and 4.e3. I think that's a stronger method of development than e4 and white tends to dominate the centre. Black can attack on the Q-side.

<<The Slav is a good opening and can be played at all levels.>>

It can't be played well though! Not by <1800s.

Hm?

after 3. e4 not a lot of strong players will play c5. They will play e5 if they want to equalize, and Nf6 or even Nc6 if they want to play for a win with risk. 

I had great results with it playing it almost all of the time against d4/c4 from 1000-2000. I wasn’t playing well but neither were my opponents  

I suppose. I had an opponent I played 100s of times when I was learning who specialised in the Slav and the French. I was scared of the Slav and used to go into a Meran, which I could just about hold as white. But he played the very conservative variation with a6 and then Bb7. Not the wilder lines with an early b4.

When I play at my current blitz grade of 1700, by that stage some of my opponents are learning not to play 4 ...Bf5. Below that and they almost all play Bf5, so they haven't much idea how to play it.

You said you weren't going to respond and yet you did!

So are you a liar?  Or just dumb?

This topic has gone way too far off the charts. Just play what you want, but remind yourself that even though with perfect play a slav defense would be preferable over a QGA, your opponent can perfom badly-- YOU can too perform badly and blunder, positionnally and/or materially. The better you get and the better prepared your opponents will be, and at the time they are prepared to the utmost comes the real dilemna : would you rather draw against a slav defense or a spanish game (white's perspective here).

Honestly guys, you just play well in either, and you can win no matter whether you play QGA, QGD, or Slav Defense. The real question here is not whether QGA is a good opening for black, the real question is if you are a good player and can play well in QGA. It's simply a matter of preference.

I used the QGA as my main defence for years and used to score well with it. The trouble was, I was rated round about 1700 FIDE equivalent in UK and I wasn't playing too many people over 1900. I could generally draw with people around 1800 to 1850 but even if I managed to win a pawn, I'd still draw against stronger players. I decided to switch defences and wanted one with some zing, so I decided to play the Modern Benoni. The first time out, I beat a 1950 with it. He was most churlish and told me that if he hadn't dropped his e pawn, "he would have crushed me". But he dropped his e pawn and I just hung on and won. I decided there was something preferable about the Modern Benoni pawn structure that made it easier to transpose into a playable ending. In the QGA, usually black has some compensating defect and either the q-side pawns are vulnerable or the centre is vulnerable, so I kept drawing games I thought I should have won. I did very well with the Modern Benoni for about 12 years, even though I never studied it properly, and stronger players used to avoid it when playing me, but a few years ago I noticed that there's more understanding of it now. I was losing more and winning less, so I switched to the QGD, Tartakover Variation. Back to where I started out!

There are probably reasons the super grandmasters don't seem to play it?