Opening suggestions against 1. d4

I want to prepare myself in a game against an opponent who I know almost always opens with 1. d4.

Now my question is as a relative newby in chess after 30 years, what would be the best playable defences against this move, based on my limited experience. I have some ideas myself on openings, which I name here:

Benoni

Dutch

King's Indian

Symmetrical/Austrian defence.

What would you like to recommend, considering my low experience as playable?

(BTW, no need here to discuss if 1. d4 at all in some way is considered an ill opening move, as I said this opponent is using it, and I need to prepare myself!)

I would recommend to go for the Dutch or King's Indian, as they have a quite easy concept for Black (King side attack). The Benoni is harder to play with limited experience.

Personally I would hope you choose the Dutch when you are a Dutchman :-) When preparing you will have to choose one of the three main Dutch setups:

1. Leningrad with g6 and Bg7. If you like to fianchetto your Bishop this could be fine. But most low experience players don't like that.

2. The Stonewall with f5, e6, d5, c6, Nf6, Be7/d6, 0-0, Qe8 etc. This concept is quite easy to learn, and Black can get a strong attack on the King side. I will recommend this if you like closed positions.

3. The classical Dutch with f5, e6, Be7, Nf6, 0-0, d6 etc. I would recommend this if you like more open positions. GingerGM have a nice aggressive video introduction.

Good luck!

The Dutch also looks tempting.

Meanwhile I abtained some books on the Benoni (for the future).

It is also interesting to get your opponent out of his comfort zone.

We’re on the same boat; I agree.

The Indian Game is flexible as well so it can even be played against the London System. I enjoy the dynamic play and openness. Less theory as well relative to some lines.

A couple of my games went like this:

https://www.chess.com/game/live/44598551583

https://www.chess.com/game/live/53659222741

Out of those options, I'd recommend the KID. It's simple, safe, and solid. Another point in its favor is just how easy it is to transpose into and out of. The only thing I'd say would be to make sure to study it in its entirety as well as the Modern Classical Benoni, as the Orthodox KID can transpose into it. I think the Benoni and the Dutch are also pretty good.

Probably not to him, but considering that a classical game against a GM and a rapid/blitz game against a non-titled player are two COMPLETELY different things, this is invalid. Also, most engines and supercomputers play KID regularly. (AlphaZero dislikes playing 1. d4 d5 as Black, instead, always playing 1. d4 Nf6 if possible, and yet the QG is one of the most popular openings in chess). Non-titled players, titled players, super GMs, and supercomputers/engines are completely different things, so they have different opinions about openings, all of which can be simultaneously correct in their respective catergories.

It's neither simple (the exact opposite), nor safe (in  a few critical lines black is hanging by a thread), and far from solid.

I mean, that's chess though, isn't it? You could say the same things or worse about the Sicilian and I'd agree with you, but a Sicilian player would still say the Sicilian is simple, safe, and solid because of how much they've played it and studied it. As long as you know the transposition lines, you can play the KID from pretty much anything, and it seems to me that the mainlines are rather intutive. Of course, there are some rather strong variations for White, but you should be able to maintain relative equality with experience.

Play the indian 

How about the QGD ("Queen's Gambit Declined")? It's quite logical and relatively simple to understand. Each move responds, quite intuitively, to white's threats.

White threatens a pawn, you defend it. White threatens a piece, you defend that piece. White captures, you recapture. And so on, and so forth.

Here's a sample line, for simplicity's sake:

The weird notions some people have about chess always amaze me.

I saw the Queen's Gambit (declined) as an option. But then white has to play 2. c4 in order to let this happen. So he can also choose something else. Nonetheless something to keep in mind.

This is a highly overrated concept.

You need to play what you know, not what he doesn't know.

Prime Example - Let's say it is round 7 of a 7 round tournament.  You and your opponent are at the top board in your section.  Both of you have 5 1/2, next highest score is 5, so you know that a win gets you clear first.  You have been observing the other games in your section, and you know you and your opponent had the following openings and results:

You:

Rd 1 - Black - French Winawer - 0-1

Rd 2 - White - Sokolsky's Opening - 1-0

Rd 3 - Black - Stonewall Dutch - 1/2-1/2

Rd 4 - White - Sokolsky's Opening - 1-0

Rd 5 - Black - French Winawer - 0-1

Rd 6 - White - Sokolsky's Opening - 1-0

Your Opponent:

Rd 1 - White - French McCutchen - 1-0

Rd 2 - Black - French Tarrasch - 0-1

Rd 3 - White - French Winawer - 1-0

Rd 4 - Black - French Winawer - 0-1

Rd 5 - White - Sicilian Najdorf - 1/2-1/2

Rd 6 - Black - King's Indian Defense - 0-1

So the table is set and you have Black.  Answer these questions:

Your opponent saw that you won both your games against 1.e4, and in 1 case, you absolutely blew him off the board.  You only got a draw against 1.d4.  He has only played 1.e4 as White for the last decade.  Should he suddenly play 1.d4 to "get me out of my comfort zone?"

He decides to play 1.e4 anyway.  Now you.  You saw him maul Black in both his games against the French, and you see he is a French (Defense, not Nationality) player as well, whipping up on White both times.  He only managed a draw against the Najdorf.  So does this mean you should suddenly play the Sicilian Najdorf against this guy?

No!  He may know the French, but so do you, and eventually, it all comes down to playing out the middlegame and endgame.  When you get to that point, you'd regret it if you deviated from your norm.

In your opponent's case, if he had played 1.d4, sure you only got a draw earlier, but what happens at move 17, well after the opening, and he suddenly has no idea what he is doing.  He is desperately looking to force e4 when he should be locking up the dark squares against the Stonewall with 7.b3 and 8.Ne5.  Instead, he placed his pieces in awkward positions and may be borderline lost by move 17.

What about you?  You going to play the Najdorf Sicilian simply because you saw him on the weak side of a draw round 5?  He plays the English Attack.  You up on your theory?  You'd likely be dead in the next 10 moves.

Both players should play to their own strengths, which would result in a French Winawer in this scenario.  It is both of yours' best shot at getting the win.

This. Every other approach is fundamentally flawed.

This also applies for every other opening you've mentioned:

Benoni, King's Indian, Symmetrical/Austrian defence. If white does not play 2.c4, you must opt for something different as well.

It does not apply for the Dutch, but there you have to deal with 4 dangerous sytems outside the usual Nf3/g3 frame: 2.e4, 2.Nc3, 2.Bg5 and 2.Bf4. None of them is easy, or intuitive to play.

Well, so far, I know my opponent who is very keen to play 1. d4 has met with a lot of KID replies. But over the past almost 20 years never encountered the Dutch defense. 

So as a relative newby myself, this might also unsetled him.

You can literally guarantee avoidance of the Queen's Gambit for both sides, so why learn it? AlphaZero's with me on this one, as its preference against 1. d4 was always 1... Nf6. The Indian Games (NID, BID, QID, Catalan, KID, Gruenfeld, Neo-Gruenfeld, Trompowsky, Torre, Budapest, Benoni, Benko Declined, Benko Half Accepted, Benko Fully Accepted, Old Indian, Lion) are more interesting and more varied than QG games (QGD, QGD: Marshall, QGD: Austrian, QGD: Albin, QGA, Tarrasch, Slav, Semi-Slav), especially if you prefer hypermodern play to hypertraditional play.