Playing as black against Nf3, D4 without transposing to Slav defense.

This sort of issue has come up before. A similar discussion took place at:

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-openings/sicilian-defense-closed-variation-3?page=2

(Whether or not the Closed Sicilian was defined by 1 e4 c5 2 Nc3.)

If I remember correctly, there was another argument over whether or not the Smith-Moira was defined by 1 e4 c5 2 d4.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/why-is-the-smith-morra-called-a-gambit

At https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/followed-opening-principles-still-lost-unsure-what-i-did-wrong?page=2

the discussion briefly became one over whether or not 1 e4 g6 was the Modern Defense.

I think that the main culprit is computer software that has somewhat simplified opening terminology, changing it from the way that it has been viewed by many. Computer sources are apt to simplify and approximate actual human usage because it is pretty hard for computers to duplicate it. Nobody is an appointed terminology authority, but titled players are more apt to have an idea about what helps to convey important chess concepts to each other. Since they are also the ones who do most of the chess writing, it seems to me that it might be sensible to try to be in tune with the way they use language. I do not know if titled players have generally adopted the term, "East Indian", but that seems to be the sort of thing that many consider to be the appropriate question.

That’s really well put. 

Point is, what is the difference between "East Indian" and "Indian"? The answer is nothing ... no difference ..., because "East Indian" is just an Americanisation, and since America always wants to take over the world, the rest of us laugh at it.

Or at least have a suppressed giggle.

No politics.

You talk a lot, and I don't even understand with what you are even talking about

I use to play Sicilian, but I rarely play it anymore since I learned Caro-Kann, recently I tried the Grunfeld and have a successful score with it, I think I would start to play with it now.

I never saw a queenside castle the dutch in a high-level game, but it is a very interesting opening to learn and play at club level. I think I will try to use it more.

So, if white plays Nf3, what should I reply to bait white to play D4? since NF6 is not an option because of black blocks the F pawn

 I apologise for my dig at another nation in my original comment. There's no other way to answer the question about why "East Indian Defence", unfortunately, other than making the point that some inhabitants of one nation or society in the world may favour a change in nomenclature but such a change has no possible foundation in variations of chess theory.

He doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm a n00b, but I'm pretty sure the Slav and CK are sister opening with the same or similar pawn structure. And there is nothing wrong with Slav or Semi-Slav as openings...they are well-respected and played by SUper GMs down to people like me.

No, he's right. Of course, they transpose from 1. ...c6. But, for instance, in that thread with supposedly the super-sharp CK line that people are banging on about, the structures and the moves are very similar to similar-looking lines in the Slav but if it was a Slav, black would be blown out of the water. In the CK with no e pawn for white, white just has a bit of an advantage, probably.

"... If you choose the Pirc against 1 e4, it makes sense to consider the King's Indian against 1 d4. This is more flexible and will give you additional options later. … Likewise, the Caro-Kann and the Slav fit together, and then you can answer 1 c4 by 1...c6, without having to undertake any additional learning to cope with 2 e4. …" - GM John Nunn (1998)

I think you're missing the point. Nunn was just suggesting the possibility of a universal 1 ...c6 to all openings. He isn't saying that the CK and Slav are the same. Obviously there are some lines that are somewhat similar but in this line we're discussing here, for instance, with Ne5 and Qb3 for white, it's extremely difficult for black to stay alive, if it were a Slav. Black doesn't have the sharp options and just has to defend and defend and something usually gives ... white has so many targets.

An indication that 1. d4 is superior to 1. e4, maybe!

Never thought that he was.

I thought you were. Maybe you were just stirring?

Otherwise what was your point? ... the fact that the Slav and CK both feature ...c6 seems so obvious it isn't worth mentioning.

One does sometimes see explanation of an advantage to playing Caro-Kann and Slav.

Well for me, the difficulty in playing the CK is the main line with 3. Nd2, so when I play it I go Nf6 or Nd7. As for the Slav, that doesn't appeal and never did. I like playing against it.

Someone I knew well played the French and the Slav. I can understand that better ... they're both fighting defences, sharp and aggressive. But with the CK, black often 0-0-0. Not so with the Slav, so far as I know. I don't think they go together, mainly for that reason, maybe..

What he's saying is superficially obvious and it doesn't take a genius to point it out, but it's also potentially misleading. I think that in the CK, the pawn structures are more likely to transform.

Thankyou for your sensitive and poignant responses.