QGA

I think I want to learn the QGA. Seems like Black's pieces have good squares most of the time and the plans are sort of similar for most of white's replies. However, it looks like it is white who is pressing through the first 10-20 moves and black just needs to hope to weather the storm. There is no clear counterplay in the beginning. Maybe I misunderstand the ideas of this opening? I have Schandorff's book (written on d4-d5; c4 from white's perspective) and he writes "it is a very concrete way of playing. white risks not getting a game at all, just a sterile draw". Well I would like to get a game as black, not just a sterile draw. or are these just silly concerns?

There have been a number of threads on the Queen's Gambit Accepted in the past year. So a good place to start might be those posts...which often got bogged down in "your opening sucks" arguments. I got James Rizzitano's book on the QGA and wasn't quite impressed enough with Black's game to adopt it myself.

At least at amateur level the opening can be played with very aggressive intentions. I have an old chess.com article somewhere, feathuring some sharp black tries. 

At lower levels W often plays 2.e3 which makes him sure to regain the gambit pawn. This can be countered with 2...e5!? which is potentially quite sharp. In the mainline B accepts an isolated pawn but gets a very open game.

2.Nf3 denies this possibility but B has some unbalancing attempts (for example he can try to hold the extra pawn).

2.d4 tends to be fun for both sides, no problem here.

In my view if you like the positions you can build a relatively sharp QGA repertoire.

I've switched from the KID to the QGA a few months ago, and here's my thoughts:

QGA Pros:

• Black isn't forced into a very committal pawn structure like the KID/Dutch, or forced to give up the bishop pair early as in the Nimzo/Chigorin
• Black has clear counterplay against the IQP if white goes into one of those lines
• Easier to play for a win against lower rated players than in the QGD since the position is more open and the pieces tend to stay on the board
• Not a lot of book theory to know; there are IQP positions and symmetrical positions (generally).  The pawn structure and piece setup is pretty common throughout most formations.
• Surprisingly tactical play from dead looking and/or queenless positions.
• Can almost always steer the position into a formation you're comfortable with

QGA Cons:

• An early trade of queens and symmetrical pawn structure basically gives white a no-risk way of playing for a win.  Statistically black scores fine here because of the large draw percentage, but it's a total uphill battle for a draw (not unlike most QGD lines, I suppose).  The better the player, the more often I see early queenless lines.
• Play against IQP type of positions can be volatile; black can get blown off the board if not careful.

"However, it looks like it is white who is pressing through the first 10-20 moves and black just needs to hope to weather the storm. There is no clear counterplay in the beginning."

In most lines, yes, this is the case.

Thanks for the useful replies! Especially from a real rocket brain surgeon :)

So you switched from the KID for the QGA - will you stick to it? I think I want to stick to the QGA because I switched through so many openings that I lost count (KID, Classical Dutch, Grunfeld, Chigorin and I'm sure I forgot something).

Stick to something. Too much switching can lead to disappointment, because you will lose a bit when you switch, not being familiar with the ins & outs of an opening. Only by playing something for a while will you become confident in the various lines of play.

I've just recently started playing the QGA.  I figured I'd give it a shot before what I fear may be an inevitable journey to the Semi-Slav. To me, the QGA feels less like a 1.d4 game than any defense I've tried.  I like it so far, but I haven't played it enough to decide if I'm going to keep it.  Like you I've been through a few alternatives(QGD-Tartakower, KID, Pirc/Modern, Leningrad Dutch, Stonewall Dutch), but I haven't felt comfortable playing them.  I probably had the most success with the Leningrad, but I always felt on the verge of collapse even in the games I've won with it.  At this early stage I'm more optimistic about the QGA than I was in the early stages of the other defenses I've used, so I'm hoping that's a good sign.

 I played the LGD for years before tossing it. That sounds about right. It's about the scariest opening I ever played, not without success, though. But so unstable I thought I'd croak before move 20 about half the time. I may yet pick up the QGA.

 The best try QGA Puzzels

This is a counterplay for a huge favorite of both Anand and Kramnik