QGA and computers

For the past six months I've been looking at various defenses to the Queen's  Gambit - Nimzo, Ragozin, QGD, Chigorin, Slav, etc. I play against Stockfish and find that I commonly get wrapped up and squeezed to death.

A number of times in books or articles about opennings I've run across comments like "this usually transposes from the Queen's Gambit Accepted or this transposes to the Queen's Gambit Accepted."

Most texts describe the QGA as insipid, dull and unintersting so I've pretty much ignored it.  But I started playing with it the last few days and I'm finding it a real breath of fresh air.  Black strikes back at the center immediately and the pieces pretty much come out to "where they are supposed to."  It's easy to develop, castle and get a game going with the computer before getting knocked out in the final round.

I don't believe the QGA gives Black an advantage necessarily but all disadvantages aren't created equal.  White has a bit more space but doesn't really get a lead in development.  He also commonly gets an isolated center pawn which can be good or bad as time goes by.  That's part of what defines White's space advantage.

My question really is about if I'm just seeing it this way because I'm playing against a computer and trying to prevent myself from losing right away?

What sort of experience do folks have playing for or against the QGA.

I've started playing the QGA recently too and I really like it. It seems like quite a no-nonsene approach and some of the lines can be pretty imbalanced and interesting. The 3. e4 lines are fun to play against and in the 3. Nf3 4. e3 lines you can often force an isolani which leads to an interesting game.

The only thing is you've gotta be willing to play a wide variety of postions as White can play either some pretty sharp lines with 3. e4 or very quiet ones e.g. in the 3. Nf3 4.e3 lines where he takes on c5 and trades queens :P

Yeah I think some of it comes down to personal preference - I quite like forcing the isolani as it kind of makes Black's plan pretty clear and gives something to play for. Also you kind of force White to prove he has compensation for the long term weakness and so put a bit more pressure on him ;)

Interesting, not come across those exchange sac ideas before but can see how they could be good in some cases - I reckon if you managed to trade a rook for a bishop and the two queenside pawns you could have a lot of chances, as those connected passed pawns would be pretty hard to stop

Yeah I know what you mean. I mainly just play OTB nowadays - never really got the hang of correspondence haha - so cheating isn't something I really come across very much. I don't tend to try for a win if I don't think one is there, but if I thought that exchange sac was the most correct idea in the position I'd go for it.

Btw what do you think of the 3. e3 (i.e. before Nf3) line for White? Can Black get away with 3... e5?

Excellent.  This rather validates what I'm finding.  I very much like that I can have those choices between solid play or unbalancing the position for sharp play.

Your advice on ignoring the books is a good. I'm finding the QGA moves fairly obvious.  The positions I'm getting also don't seem to involve a lot of highly tactical razor sharp lines where the computer is just thrashing me with obtuse combinations winning a pawn after a 5 piece exchange.

The positions seem more about getting the pieces out, putting the rooks on open lines, and some common sense prophylaxis.

I'm going to pick up a few books on the debut and read up some.

if you like it, play it.  here's an intro:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZsGD_f3jIY

check the post-game analysis for a few thoughts on the opening.

I find it hard to win from the black side of the QGA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SS1-2kCsIiI

That's a good intro as well.

In my experience, QGA is tends to be weak in the opening, but it pays off endgame if you can manage to play with a strong enough midgame. I've also noticed that a lot of Queen's Gambit players don't know the theory behind it and are really thrown off by QGA. However, I would recommend the King's Indian Defense as a better counter to 1.d4. It usually results in white having a huge buildup of pawns that gets in the way of more useful pieces later in the game. It also makes it easy to launch a strong offensive kingside and if white doesn't transition to the bayonet attack you shouldn't have much difficulty gaining an advantage early on.

The QGA is a clever opening choice in its way.

It's well-known but not known well by most White class players.
It's sound and straightforward.
It doesn't require a huge memory investment.

I do believe Fiveofswords simply plans to outplay his opponents.

I played the King's Indian for years and I still have a fondness for it, as well as closed positions with kingside attack potential, but the KID is pretty double-edged and theory-intense.

The Fianchetto System takes much of the fun out of the KID. I prefer playing the White side of that.

There's a lot to love with the KID, but a lot of responsibilities too.

You should try to play open positions.

I like to play the black side of the qgd In which I set up a solid king side and slowly expand on the queenside

I think you've pretty much encapsulate my viw of the opening from my limited experience.

I'm not sure if it is weak or not hence the questions.  It is easy to play and fend the computer off.  The Five of Swords seems to verify that his experience with it in OTB is the same.

The KID is the kind of defense I don't want to play.  Closed, crabbed but simultaneously double edged.  A GM described the reason he switched away from the KID is he got tired of having his opponent on the verge of being checkmated only to find himself mated.  He also found it agonizing when an imprecision resulted in a protacted grind where he was on the defensive.  That is pretty much my take as well.  The KID is certainly a viable defense and was played by a couple of the best ever.  But it doesn't suit me.

Even if I do lose I want to feel like I was outplayed by a superior chess player and not like I transposed a move in the opening and then got trussed up like a pig.

One obvious feature of the opening is that Black can make it happen early.

It's also possible to transpose to it if White starts with c4 or Nf3.

Five o' Swords,

I know what you mean about feeling like your rating went up about 400 points.  Whether true or not it simply makes the opening enjoyable to play.  When I play the QGA positions and find what appear to be the plusses and minuses I'm commonly finding that my judgments are spot on.  And the QGA is a a debut with a lot of choices from bringing the Bg4, c5, a6-b5 push, cd to isolate the pawn, etc.  Each has its good points and its bad.  What is somewhat reassuring about it is that if a move is found in one of the lines that makes it unplayable there are the other ways.

To hear tell the QGA is sterile and route and I'm finding it anything but that.

Again, I don't think that Black has some advantage out of the opening and is probably a little worse.  But White can overstep and the long term looks good or equal for Black.

At that point it's about who can play better.  I like that.

You gotta remember that Black is never better out of the opening (if White plays correctly), despite what that guy saying you should play the King's Indian is saying. But if the QGA gives you a decent shot at equality and you find the positions intuitive to play then what more can you ask for out of the opening? ;)