QGD - Symmetrical Defence

Hey guys, I don't know if this opening has a name but it looks like this;

What do we think about this opening? Both from White and from Black?

What is the best way for White to approach this type of defence?

I kind of like 3. dxc5 myself.

Looked this up, it's called the Queen's Gambit Declined-Austrian defense

Here it is bad, however it is a good try for a simplifying drawing defence if your opponent has played Nf3 early through a move order such as: 1.Nf3 d5 2.d4 c5 3.c4 or 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 c5 3.c4

(p. 275)(Queen's Gambit Declined)

   SYMMETRICAL DEFENCE (cols. 94-5) contains grist for the theorist's

mill--it poses the crucial question of whether Black can imitate White

although a move behind. However, at best, it is good for no more than

a draw. Unusual tries for Black on move two are considered in note (m).

The antidote is sound development and common sense.

Evans, Larry, and Walter Korn. 1965. Modern Chess Openings, 10th Edition. New York: Pitman Publishing Corporation.

----------

What I know about it:

(1) It's very drawish.

(2) It requires loads of memorization for Black since there is so much flexibility for White, and a single wrong move early on can allow Black to lose fast.

(3) It is very similar to and sometimes transposes to the Symmetrical Tarrasch Defense.

(4) Just about any 3rd move by White is a good continuation, especially if developing (either N-B3) or capturing (either PxP)

I was first exposed to it from a computer program in the '80s called Bluebush Chess, which played it as Black. My belief is that it's sound and interesting, just as Korn's book said above. 

Why? I would have thought cxd5 makes more sense? Although, afer 3. cxd5 cxd4 it becomes quite difficult for us to defend our d5 pawn.

Can you explain why and how we plan to defend our pawn or even if we defend it at all?

Yep, I've seen that only once, in Portisch- Bronstein 1969. Poor Devik crashed badly.

OK pfren, what about now;