QGD Tarrasch set-up against all flank openings?

It's no good against the Sokolsky (1.b4)

Yes, you can play it as a "system" defense against most White openings. I do much the same (except against 1.e4).

Though you need to know how to handle it. You can't just play it on autopilot and expect the same game every time.

Different openings from White require different strategies from Black.

In many cases, the ...c5 push needs to be properly prepared, in order to avoid structural weaknesses, or tactical traps.

The Catalan can be especially tricky. Sometimes Black is best to play ...c6 instead of ...c5, and then only push to c5 later, once the queenside development has been better completed.

Also, against aggressive lines in the London or the Stonewall, Black sometimes needs to reroute his queen knight to the kingside in a specific, timely fashion.

Using a database to see how grandmasters handle it will give you better insight. But yes, it can be done.

you should find something else if white beats you to it with 1 c4 2 e3 and 3 d4. it's playable but there's better ways of unbalancing the position.

Seems equal according to the engine on Forward Chess app ... but that is from my mobile device.   What is the "verbal" reason that the Tarrasch set-up doesn't work against 1.b4?  Giving up the more central c-pawn in exchange for a b-pawn?  Would an early ...b6 work here (be lots of early pawn moves)?

In any case, against 1.b4, I'd probably just aim for an e-d pawn center and go from there, but generally speaking, it would be nice in my life to have a consistent set-up as Black against not-1.e4.  

Thanks for the detailed response.  Looking for ways to simplify my openings without doing a pure "system."  I don't play much, and even then I have only faced 1.d4 only a few times (OTB, that is).  The Tarrasch seems like a nice way to get an active open position and fairly central pawn structure, but I can't find anything on it against the minor flank openings, just as a transposition against 1.c4 and 1.Nf3.  Trying to find the balance between being realistic with what I can play and learn from long-term given limited time to study, but not degenerating into some autopilot set-up.  I wouldn't mind playing the standard QGD systems, but then I feel like the work explodes since you have to know how to handle White's move 2 sidelines, whereas with a Tarrasch set-up, I was hoping to transpose.  

Is completing the pawn symmetry too suboptimal for Black (e.g., 1.c4 e6 2.e3 d5 3.d4 c5)?  I guess for Black's third move, could also just transpose to the more standard QGD lines, but would rather employ one system against 1.d4 and all of the flanks openings that leans toward being classical, active, and open (preferably not the KID and probably not the Dutch, though I'd be willing listen to the arguments of their advocates).

i play b6, going for bb7 and bd6. white can still copy you here but at least you haven't played c5 yet and don't have to. the symmetrical tarrasch is not suboptimal, just mostly leads to open c and d files if one side or the other is too afraid of going for an isolani. if you expect white to give you the iqp then that's good. the e3 setups have less bite against the iqp.

First off, all bots are terrible at assessing opening positions.

You are indeed giving up a more central pawn, and automatically doing nothing to contest the dark squares.

It is a mistake to assume the same position against everything for many reasons:

1) Cases like 1.b4 where early c5 moves by Black are inferior.

2) One needs to understand what BOTH sides are doing, not just ignore half the pieces, close your eyes, and assume moves.  NO LINE WORKS AGAINST EVERYTHING!  Yep, even the London System is =/+ against the Modern Defense (1.d4 g6 2.Bf4? Bg7 3.e3 d6 4.Nf3 Nc6! (Or 4...Nd7! If you prefer to keep the queens) 5.h3 e5! 6.Bg3 =/+ (6.dxe5? dxe5 7.Qxd8+ Kxd8 8.Bg5? f6 -/+)

Thanks ... yes, I'd have to be ready for IQP play, though I am still working on much more basic things.

Thanks ...

I understand that every unique position has its unique needs, but in this particular case (symmetrical QGD Tarrasch structure after move 3), am I not getting the benefit of a more open position with greater potential for active piece play?  

When higher level folks say the things you are saying, which I agree with fundamentally in a perfect world, it almost sounds like they are saying "You need to learn the most optimal and demanding lines of the most theoretically intensive openings rather than play a more simplified line, content with a playable middlegame."  At the same time, I also hear higher-rater players and coaches encourage lower-level players play openings with "simple plans."  Is it wrong, for instance, to respond to 1.c4 with 1...e6 instead of 1...e5 in order to transpose to the "simpler" QGD rather than the Reverse Sicilian? (somewhat rhetorical question, but I am truly asking if someone has a unique insight into this). 

I want to play "classical" and principled chess, but sadly I simply do not have time to learn the main lines of the Ruy Lopez or the Open Sicilian, especially when working through the Chess King tactics apps, raise a child, and deal with a job that is trying to murder me.   I am searching for a balance of what someone at my level, talent, and time (all very low) can realistically play and learn from in the long-term, but not be one of those autopilot-ish systems like some try to make the London, the KID (at least the first several moves), or the Hippo.  

If I have to learn a separate opening as Black against each flank, then ... dang, that sucks.  

Nowhere did I say you have to play the main line for a 0.15 advantage.  I am an e4 player and I do not play the Open Sicilian.  However, I also do not premeditate my pawn structure.  About the only opening that works against "anything but e4" is the King's Indian setup, but theory there is overbearing with many lines that have numerous "only moves" for Black.

You are thinking too much about keeping the same structure for your pawns only and not looking at the big picture.  Think about what types of positions you prefer.  Do you prefer blocked positions?  Open positions with at least one open file?  Etc.

Here is a prime example.  Many thing the French and QGD or Slav and Caro or KID and Pirc are great pairs because ONLY BLACK'S PAWNS ARE THE SAME AFTER 5 MOVES!.  The French is often a blocked position.  Both sides attack the direction their pawns point.  White kingside, Black queenside.

What QP opening often does that?  Not the QGD, but rather, the KID!  The KID and French is a better pair of openings.

Let's say you prefer the IQP positions (also common in the French, especially the Tarrasch.  QGA is right up your alley!

You sound like you want a more open center.  Do you play the Berlin or Petroff possibly?  Like that open file?  Go for the light-square systems of the Nimzo-Indian (dark square systems lead to more blocked positions.)

You want openings with similar play moves 10 to 40, not 1 to 10.

Like I said, I do not play the absolute main lines.  Closed Sicilian, Slow Italian, Advance or KIA vs French, etc.  No need to kill yourself with ultra main lines, but mimicking the first 7 moves against everything is also a mistake.  Again, aim for similarity in moves 10 to 40!

Against 1 b4 you can go 1 e6. And throw in a5 first in order to force a decision from white. The point is if white advances b5, you play c5 and invite bc ep, when both captures are playable as far as i know, and if white ignores c5 you can go b6 bb7 bd6 again. Having the pawn on a5 here means white can't play a5 himself and so it's harder to make use of his space on the queenside. This line is what i played before I switched to the direct 1..e5

Main things you'll face [other than e4] are d4 and c4 and Tarrasch is OK against both. aagaard&lund's 'Meeting d4' goes into other flank openings wrt the Tarrasch and Schiller's book on the Tarrasch [actually pretty good -not as awful as most of his books] does too. Tarrasch doesn't cover everything but the further you get from being able to use it, the less challenging the white systems are, generally speaking. Tarrasch often leads to a tactical middlegame [where activity compensates for structure]. I find it useful to collect & go thru tactical puzzles from GM Tarrasch games. Also studying how Capablanca defended the endgame vs Flohr is essential. --All just my opinions of course. -Bill

If I was the OP would just go ahead and do what wants to do. Don't see anything terrible for black after 1.b4 d5 2Bb2 e6 3e3 Nf6 4a3 c5, and 1c4 e6 2e3 d5 4d4 c5 is completely fine, just have to know appropriate moment to avoid symmetry. In these non critical lines there are plenty of classical straightforward developing options to. For example in first 2...Bg4, and second 4...Be7, and later b6, Bb7.

Wouldn't worry about optimal moves, whatever that means, chess is not mathematics. Learning the opening is mostly about ensuring moves that find natural, are reasonable. 

Yes, you can.
Even 1 b4 e6 2 Bb2 d5 3 Nf3 Nf6 and 4...c5 is OK
Even 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 Nd2 c5 or 1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 e5 c5

4.b5 is better than 4.a3.

Thanks for the responses.  I am not looking to "study" anything, just to play the same early moves consistently when I do play, though I don't play very often.   I am looking for a compromise opening with the following buzzword qualities (or as close to as possible):

1. classical

2. simple

3. un-sidesteppable  

4. good for long term "learning"

For instance, The London as White, Scandinavian as Black against 1.e4, and Baltic Defence against 1.d4 might all be "simpler" and less "side-steppable", but not as good for learning and less classical. On the other hand, aiming for Ruy Lopez and Open Sicilian as White, and QGD Tartakower and Ruy Lopez as Black is more side-steppable and not "simpler", but are classical and better for learning, though not sure if that works for someone who has less than 25 minutes daily to work on chess. 

Then again, maybe I just play the most complicated theory-laden openings, knowing that the plans in even these higher-level complicated openings will simplify very early when I play my typical opponents in sub-1500 rating range.

Thought the QGD Tarrasch might be a better option in the eternal attempt to satisfy the buzzword qualities I mentioned above.

2 and 4 don't coincide. it has to be complex to be good long term. unless your priority is for the opening to satisfy 2 first and 4 is optional, or the other way around.

maybe go for something classical, good long term, and something with clear and straightforward plans for both sides. i think here you can satisfy all three.

#19
Simple and good can go together. Many great players like Capablanca, Rubinstein, Karpov specialised in simple positions and played thus at the highest levels.