Opening repertoire to 1.d4 for a player with positional problems

Hey guys, 

I have always had some trouble coming up with a not too boring repertoire against 1.d4. I've oftentimes found myself in situations where I felt like neighter side was doing anything but in the end I lost. At the moment, I feel like I can crush my oppenent with White, but with Black that same opponent often holds an edge. Now, I am more of a counter-ttacking/tactical player and I like the closed structures of the French, which I play in response to 1.e4. I play the King's Gambit or the Italian game with White. Instead of switching between defenses - which is what I've been doing for the last year - I wanted to get your thoughts on the following idea: I want to play 1. ...e6 in reply to 1.d4, both to avoid the Trampowsky and to get into a Dutch without too many move order problems. So, my question is this: Should I focus on the Dutch and the QGD or should I rather play for the NID / QID / Bogo.Indian? Keeping in mind that I obviously need to work on my skills in slow and strategic positions, would my game benefit more from the QGD or from the Indian systems? So far, I feel that the QGD is rather passive for Black if White wants to go for the Exchange-Variation and that is not a very comfortable feeling. However, maybe I should learn how to handle these positions and play them more often? On the other hand, maybe the Indian systems are a little too demanding positionally, since I clearly have troubles in this area of my game and I read that slight positional mistakes aren't as problematic in the QGD compared to other defenses to 1.d4 (Neil McDonald's book on the QGD).

Any constructive advice is appreciated.

Cheers! 

Also, wenn du im Schach besser werden willst musst du dich früher oder später ohnehin mit den positionellen/strategischen Aspekten des Schachs befassen, da ein gutes taktisches Verständniss zwar sehr wichtig ist, ab einem bestimmten Niveau jedoch sowohl taktische als auch positionelle Fähigkeiten von Nöten sind, um eine (Langzeit-) Partie für sich zu entscheiden. Von daher würde ich dir raten auf 1. d4 mit einem indischen System zu erwidern und an deinen positionellen und strategischen Mängeln zu arbeiten. Von den, von dir erwähnten indischen Systemen (ich nehme an dass du kein Nimzo-Indisch spielen willst) würde ich dir am ehsten zu Königsindisch raten, da es meiner Meinung nach die ehrgeizigste Erwiderung darstellt (was nicht zwangsläufig heißt, dass es die objektiv beste ist).

Ich hoffe ich konnte helfen und du und die anderen Forum-Usernehmen es mir nicht allzu Übel dass ich in Deutsch geantwortet habe, da ich gerade keine Lust habe lange über die englischen Formulierungen nachzudenken ;).

Hey! Ja, kein Problem. Ich hatte mich verschrieben, ich meinte natürlich Nimzo und nicht KID, da ich mit 1. ...e6 schwer zu Königsindisch komme. Habe das grad in meinem Text geändert. Also, ich habe immer gehört, dass Königsindisch positionelle Fehler ziemlich hart bestraft. Wie siehst du das und was meinst du zum QGD?

LG 

Also, ich persönlich spiele gegen 1. d4 die Nimzo-Indische Verteigung. Es ist vielleicht etwas ehrgeiziger als das abgelehnte Damengambit, welches jedoch auch eine ziemlich solide Wahl darstellt. Deinen Erläuterungen nach ist jedoch eine "solide" Eröffnung nicht gerade das was du anstrebst zu spielen, weshalb ich dir in diesem Fall ehr zu Nimzo-Indisch raten würde, da das deinem Spielstil ehr entspricht und auch noch mehr taktische Elemente und aktiveres Spiel mit sich bringt. Allerding solltest du dich fragen was du bspw. nach der zugfolge 1. d4 e6 2. c4 Sf6 3. Sf3 (statt Sc3 wonach du mit 3. ...Lb5 in den Nimzo-Inder überleiten könntest) machst. Jetzt kannst du entweder mit 3. ...b6 einen damenindischen Aufbau anstreben oder mit 3. ...d5 ins abgelehnte Damengambit überleiten, was ich bevorzuge, da mir damenindische Strukturen überhaupt nicht liegen.

Im Königsinder kenne ich mich nicht besonders gut aus, jedoch entstehen aus ihm meines Wissens nach nur selten ruhige solide Stellungen. Häufig ist es ein Spiel auf unterschiedlichen Flügeln, in dem Weiß versucht den Schwarzen am Damenflügel zu überrollen, während Schwarz seinerseits einen Bauernsturm am Königsflügel auf den gegnerischen König vorbereitet. Somit kann ich dir versichern dass die Königsindische Verteidigung normalerweise nicht zu ruhigen, positionellen Partien führt, sondern häufig auch im Mittelspiel sehr taktisch werden kann und dies somit, solltest du dich dazu entscheiden die Aufarbeitung deiner positionellen Mängel erst einmal zurück zu stellen, die ideale Eröffnungswahl als Schwarzer gegen  1. d4 darstellt. Natürlich hast du dann das Problem dass du dann nicht mehr 1. ...e6 spielen kannst, was dem Weißen anbietet in die Französische Verteidigung überzuleiten, und stattdessen 1. ...Sf6 spielen müsstest, was den von dir nicht erwünschten Trompowsky-Angriff zuließe. Es ist an dir die Vor- und Nachteile der unterschiedlichen Eröffnungen abzuwägen und dich letzlich auch zu entscheiden, ob du weiter nur auf taktische Schläge setzt, oder auch die hohe Kunst der Positionsspiels lernen willst (Ich persönlich bin ja ein großer Verfechter des positionellen Schachs ;) ). Ich stehe dir bei der Entscheidungsfindung gerne mit weiteren Informationen zur Verfügung. 

Viele Grüße

Hi,

eine weitere Option wäre vielleicht noch Triangle-System. Damit kannst du Trompovsky vermeiden:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Sc3 e6 4.Sf3 5.dxc (Noteboom) Die Stellungen sind recht scharf, aber auch kompliziert.

Auf amazon.com gibt es ein recht gutes Buch von Scherbakov. In dem sample von der kindle edition kannst du zumindest das Register sehen.

Abtauschvarianten wirst du aber kaum umgehen können, weder im QG, FR noch KI. Die Abtauschvar. QG ist da vielleicht noch das kleinste Übel. Zudem würde ich als QP-Spieler niemals 2.c4 auf 1... e6 spielen (und 2.e4 schon mal gar nicht). Da wird 2.Sf3 kommen und dann London, Colle oder Torre oder eben Stonewall, wenn du f5 spielst, aber das ist doch recht passiv im Vgl. zu KG.

Ich sprache nicht gut Deutsch (not much more than this sentence) :(

I can't answer in German, but to answer the original post, it depends on where your weakness is and where you need the most work. My suggestion will lead to many painful losses at first but will help you in the long run. If your problem is patience and finding ideas in positions that appear dull but really aren't, work on the QGD. If your problem is understanding pawn structures, understanding the strengths and weaknesses on each side, and what to do with them, you will get the most diverse pawn structures in the Nimzo-Indian/QID.

@Foenixx - Yeah, the triangle system has come up in a few of my own games already and I think there is something to that too. Maybe I'll have another go at that one. 

@ThrillerFan: That is exactly the problem... should I avoid these "dull" positions or walk through the pain? ;) That is to say, yes, these "dull" positions are my problem. Do you play the QGD with black? I have Andrew Martin's DVD on the QGD where he advocates the Cambridge Springs, which seems a good choice, except for a few very solid, one might say dry lines. Any recommendations/ideas that might help me appreciate these positions more? 

Thanks a lot, guys!

I may not be someone who you want the help from. But if you like the french I think e6 is a decent reply to 1.d4, since white now has the option to play the french with e4. You just now have to be willing to play a nimzo/bogo/queens indian, or a QGD. And if you want a 'non boring' game, try the Tarrasch. Good chance at an IQP.

I mostly agree with this (The Nimzo-Indian/QID systems are great I'll agree there too) play and find your weaknesses but also keep in mind a smart guy learns from his mistakes, but a truly wise man learns from others' mistakes.  Just buy positional books and focus on them for a few months.  Don't neglect endgames and tactics though maybe dedicate a 15 minute warm up with tactics (ChessOK software is great go with CT-ART 5.0 since you'll get a bunch of nice programs with it including with easy beginner problems that are great for warm ups) and dedicate one day out of the week for endgames so that area doesn't get rusty. 

In order read My System, Soviet Middlegame Technique (up until chapter 9, then it goes into combinations), Questions of Modern Chess Theory, Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy: Advances Since Nimzowitsch, and maybe Dvoretsky's School of Chess Excellence III.  If you find you'll need GM Prep: Positional Play then you'll hit diminishing returns and at this point you'll need to round out your other chess skills, such as opening principles (Fine's book), strategic endgames (Shereshevsky), and theoretical endgames. 

No need to buy everything at once, you can find some great used chess books on Amazon and just one book should take around a month assuming you spend a couple hours a day on it (or however long it takes you to complete 10 pages).  After a month your paycheck money would certainly outpace your spend on chess books money even after bills and food are taken into account.  At worst you'll be spending $30.00 USD on a new book you can't find used. 

First of all, you need to get past the "I'm a tactical player" mentality.  Chess is chess, it has many phases.  If you are not prepared to deal with the "boring" part of the game, youre not going to improve. 

Everyone like to think themselves an attacker...agressive...tactical type of player.  But thats only half of the game.  And judging by your games, you are like most beginners..."Im tactical!"  And thats fine, tactics are what beginners need to start with.  But improvement comes with learning, and understanding strategy/positional ideas. 

An excellent book to start out with is Understanding Chess Middlegames by John Nunn. 

As you advance, youll find books like Soviet Middlegame Technique (Chess Classics) by Peter Romanovsky.  And Techniques of Positional Play: 45 Practical Methods to Gain the Upper Hand in Chess by Valeri Bronznik  are excellent. 

Just my opinion,

Good Luck

Since you already play the French as Black, You should consider answering 1. d4, 1. c4 or 1. Nf3 with 1. ... e6, intending to transpose into the Dutch. It would help if you also studied Nimzo-Indian, QID and QGD lines, so that you could bail out into them if necessary.

Hi guys, I have a hole in my play.  How do I improve without addressing that hole?  Please give me opening advice.  With which opening can I completely avoid fundamental knowledge?  Thanks.

Botvinnik's games have quite a few 1.d4 e6 playing as black.

I sometimes worry about the future of chess...so many "chess players" that want to know how to be tactical...agressive...sacrificing fools.  But dont want to put in the effort, and dont want to be bothered with positional stuff.  I only want to know which openings to play, I dont need to learn anything about middlegame/endgames because i will have sacrificed my way to victory by then. 

This might explain why i see so many people whos games have ended way before the first time controls is over, or are playing on 2 pieces down, and im not talking about the lower sections.

I am a highly tactical player.  I know my openings 25 moves deep.  I only study tactics, and openings.  How can i get better?  I want to learn openings that are tactical in nature, and that i can use to sacrifice my way to victory.

P.S.  I dont want to be bothered with that boring positional stuff.  Any help is appreciated. 

Sincerely,

Every Rated Player Between 1 and 1600 that has sac'd a bishop or Knight on f7 and it worked.

@I_AM_Second Thanks for your advice, I'll have a look at these. As for your critique: it seems to me, from your other posts as well, that you have this general critique with beginners. So, let me rephrase that. I don't consider myself a tactical player, I just notice, that I prefer open positions with more tactical options. I don't even think I am great with tactics, just that these kinds of position have been more appealing to me. I thought it was obvious that I was referring to that, since I am trying to address the weakness of my strategic game in closed positions. In fact, I personally find the positional part very complex and I want to discover these aspects of the game. As for your last post I can't relate to that since I don't think that represents my mindset. I think we have the same rating more or less (ignore my daily chess, I always time out), what do you play as black against 1.d4? 

@Goob63 / bluemuu - I do play 1. ...e6 and I play the Dutch. 

So, I think I'll go for the QGD and maybe look at the NImzo and the Bogo-/Queens Indian in the future. I think I need to stick to one system first. Any further inspiration is highly appreciated! 

Cheers

That looks like a tight schedule. I'll see if I can get a few of these and get into it. Thanks!

1.d4 is boring. It's also very popular and hence very well "databased". That's probably why you're losing.

It wasnt so much personal against you, its just that i see so many posts where peopel are asking how to be tactical...i dont want to study...postional ideas are boring...etc.