Looking for an Aggressive line against 1.d4

I reccomend the Blumenfeld Gambit (1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3. Nf3 c5 4.d5 b5!?) but unfortunately it can't be played after 3. Nc3, if you're looking for 'unavoidable' stuff go with the Dutch, the classical (1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.g2 Be7) and the stonewall (4...d5) have worked best for me.

@uhohspaghettio: One thing to keep in mind is that not everyone sees things the same way, and not everyone interprets things the same way. If you look at my first post for example, you might think that I made it clear that I'm okay with an opening of questionable soundness. But if you look at the posts of several people in this thread, you will see that they interpreted my post as meaning that I am looking for an opening that is absolutely sound, with no risk. That is not what I meant at all, but in my opinion, there's no need to get worked up over it. These people misunderstood me and if they want to look at it that way they can.

Regarding the specific thread you brought up, I can see where you guys might have disagreed. The Petroff is indeed a very drawish opening, but I think that MountainGorilla was trying to say that at lower levels, it isn't quite as drawish and can lead to some interesting play. I know for example that the Cochrane Gambit is a bit interesting, as risky as it may seem. Now, what "drawish" means is up for interpretation. You might take it to mean that the opening draws more than the average opening. He might take it to mean that it draws more than say, 40% of the time. All I can say is that you have to agree to disagree and move on, rather than insulting one another every chance you get. It really makes both of you guys look bad.

As for the last comment, I would like to point out that while thinking you know and actually knowing are two different things, it is practically impossible to tell which category you fall under. With just about anything as complicated as chess, I think I know what I know, but do I really know? I don't know.

It might be a lost cause, but I'm holding out hope that the two of you can work something out. Differing opinions do not have to lead to insults and hatred.

I agree with Mountain Gorilla

Let's see a line

I know this is an old thread, but I found it interesting. Pikachulord6, what are you playing against d4 these days? I'm much lower rated but I like learning sharper lines than maneuvering lines, and I like steering a 1. d4 player into those lines because it seems to get them out of their game if you will.  IM Mark Ginsburg has some nice videos on the Classical Nimzo, which I've been having some fun with. 

Haha, I never really did settle in on a line. I don't remember all of the various lines I've tried, but I've come full circle and am currently playing the Dutch again. Honestly though, I feel like most of the sharp responses to 1.d4 have attributes that a 1.d4 player can try to take advantage of if he is prepared enough. I suppose it's possible the same is true with 1.e4, but I haven't had quite as many problems playing Black against 1.e4, so I can't say for sure.

In my opinion, I say you should try what you find fun. If you're winning a reasonable amount of games with what you're playing and you're learning something from the opening line you choose, then I say keep playing it. If you should find that you're growing tired of an opening for whatever reason, then go try another opening and learn something else from that opening.

Thanks, good advice.  Yeah that's pretty much what I do I guess...after all, if it's not fun, no sense in playing!  I've been playing the Nimzo and it's been pretty interesting. At least I like that I have the more active pieces in the beginning and try to make something out of it. I haven't messed around much with the Blumenfeld yet but that does look like it could be fun! 

English defense.

Cogwheel, some of us don't like to lose on move 1.

I like to play the Benoni defence as an aggressive attempt against d4.  Alot of club players don't really look at it compared to the Grunfeld and the KID.

The Englund refutation has been shown elsewhere by players stronger than myself, even just searching chess.com forums I'm sure you can find a line that yields a definite advantage for white.

I was reading a chess book earlier that casually mentioned the legendary tactician Tal often played the Benoni. I was surprised at first but once you consider the complicated middlegames, it makes some sense. I think it's one of the choices I will be experimenting with. I've been playing the Nimzo for a long time and never enjoyed giving up the center and being attacked.

try the french you play more of an open game easier to see

You can only transpose to the French if white allows it.

I'm alwas amazed that in this tpe of thread the QGA gets very little or no mention.

It's respected, it's sound and the biggest plus is it's unfashionable, so the QGA player is almost always better prepared than White.

The ideas are even somewhat similar to those of the Sicilian Najdorf - Queenside expansion with pawn moves.

I play the Tarrasch and if they take the d pawn (4. cxd5) to force and isolani early I transpose into the Henning Von Shara Gambit.  Most guys at the club jump at giving black an isolani. 

If they stay on the mainline Tarrasch, two early deviations for white are important to know as well but simple to learn.  Such as an early e3 before developing the dark squared bishop and an early cxd.

Tried the QGA not too long ago thinking it would be simple and the open lines would mean good development. Instead I learned white has even more options than in the Orthodox or Slav and the open lines for your pieces are only an asset if you can ever catch up in development. I agree it's underrated but it's definitely not aggressive.

Anand played like a monster in that game. I have some inhibitions about playing the most well known and theory heavy defense against d4 though.

The Tarrasch was the other defense I have been heavily considering. Trading a permanent positional disadvantage for a pleasant middle game is an idea I like. What's also nice is you can nearly force a Tarrasch from 1.c4 and 1.Nf3 too. I find 1.Nf3 particularly difficult to force into my pet lines.

Agree.  Also, the overall pawn structure is more solid in the Semi-Slav than in the Najdorf.