QGD Tarrasch set-up against all flank openings?

QGD Tarrasch is hard to sidestep, classical and you will learn a lot about IQP positions. Black needs to be aggressive to do well. An IM here has a short course on Tarrasch that is pretty darn good. My suggestion: play it, attack when you can & have fun!

The first question, can you play the Tarrasch against all flank openings? Yeah, you can against almost all of the normal flank openings. I've been doing more or less the same for a long time. 

Not to be disrespectful, but I think you shouldn't worry yourself about being optimal at your level. Spotting tactics and making general good moves are way more important than choosing an opening system. Your opponent is not going to play the opening flawless either. Even if he would, having a slightly worse position after 10 moves is absolutely no problem. As long as you have developed your pieces and haven't given up on the center. The middlegame mistakes are much bigger than any opening mistake usually is and games can swing violently back and forth during the middlegame. It's much better to try and make those mistakes a little less and capitalize on the mistakes made by your opponent.

In fact I always used to teach my students the same philosophy and I also practice what I preach. You can reach 2200+ without knowing a lot about theory. In fact, if you get good at the middlegame and  strictly follow your opening principles (fight for the center, move your pieces once and castle), you can usually find the theoretical moves in a position on your own anyway.

Thanks, it is unfortunate but relieving to read your comments ... I had suspected the inconsistency of 2 and 4, but hardly anywhere else does anyone directly say this.  I think "good for long-term learning" would be my top choice, but would it be all for naught if I only have 2-3 hours per week to devote to chess, and I want to spend almost all of that time going through tactics/combinations and the Chess Steps Method?  In other words, I don't want to spend half of my chess time each week simply playing a single G30 without having a good plan how to make the most of it for learning, because in that time I can complete several tactics, including analyzing tactical sidelines that I overlooked in the problem, which seems more useful than the hit-and-miss approach of playing an entire game.  It will likely be about 3-4 years before I get through all of the Chess King apps that cover tactics and combinations, and I have completed the first 5 levels of the Chess Steps Method, the 6th step is well above my level so I am holding off on it for a while. 

Thanks ... No disrespect taken, I rather prefer the more blunt and honest responses.  I have been practicing as you preach, except I am not playing ... I go through my tactics (opening, middlegame, endgame, offensive, drawing, and defensive tactics on cehess tempo) pretty thoroughly, going to the end of the line, backing up one move and seeing all the other possibilities that the opponent has, and continuing to back up to the very first move and all variations that my opponent can make.  This, of course, is much more difficult to do with any opening where numerous options can lead to a similar evaluation and I just have to look at the lines suggested by the engine to see if the eventual piece set-up that the engine has in mind is something that I am okay with.  For now, I simply need to decide what moves to play before move 5 so that my "opening" is somewhat pruned, but I do not want to sacrifice learning potential for short-term convenience or ratings boost, unless the learning potential is lost when my limited time does not allow to get anything out of playing a mainline opening.

I guess another question that can be hinted by my QGD Tarrasch question is ...

If a lower-level no-talent adult player has 2-3 hours per week to devote to chess only cares about long-term learning, doesn't care about short-term results, and maybe plays one G30 per week, is that adult better off playing:

1. Pure systems opening (London, Colle, Hippo, KIA, etc)

2. Simpler openings (Four Knights, Baltic Defence, some QGD setups, exchange variation French, Scandinavian, etc.)

3. Mainline openings (Ruy Lopez as Black and White, Open Sicilian, QGD Tartakower, Reverse Sicilian, etc.)?   

The third option no doubt is the most time-consuming to learn, but if you have only so much time, are you still better off starting with those openings when playing and collecting pgn's for future analysis (no more than 5 moves deep, no memorization or even reading intro books about them, simply playing the early moves and winging it from there, then collecting pgn's for future analysis with a coach ideally when time opens up some day).  My apologies on the repetitiveness of my questions ... sometimes I feel that I am not being clear with my goals by asking this question that typically gets answered oversimplistically by absolutely new beginners that just want to checkmate their buddies in less than 10 moves. 

Some typically oversimplified answers to openings questions that are asked by lower-level players:

"Play main lines to get better" .... Is learning something that is way more complicated still better for learning when you only play one G30 per week?; 

"Don't waste your time with openings" ... Then what do you play on moves 2-4, when you are invariably forced to decide between mainline openings?

"Work on your tactics" ... That is all I do, not much, 2-3 hours per week, hence my careful consideration about the pros and cons of what might be best for me to play consistently in the early opening moves when I do happen to occasionally play.

"Control the center, develop your pieces, get your king to safety, connect your rooks" ... Again, invariably, no matter how low your rating or your opponents' rating, you will be forced to choose a mainline opening in the early going whether you like it or not (unless you choose to play something offbeat, which is NEVER recommended) ... If in fact the classical main lines are best for learning, does that still apply when somebody has limited time, and isn't going to study the mainlines anyway (except for tactical misses, until time opens up for more analysis with a qualified professional), only play them?  (then later analysis as I said earlier)

i think it is still better to study main lines. they are the model of how to extract the most out of your position. the moves follow a certain logic that you can assimilate and use when you are thinking about your move/plan. some require many moves for you to see the point, and some are crazy tactical, but i would like to think that the majority of moves in a main line are understandable especially if you can find a book or video with a lot of words. you have to work on your tactics a lot so you can get to a point where you can appreciate the value of a move and its consequences. but i think it is far more rewarding to study main lines than any other way of studying openings. besides, i cannot quantify your potential to improve, so i am assuming you'll go very far and will need main lines then.

My feeling is: play what you like and are curious about. Then study wont feel like study & you'll improve faster. Beyond that, the difference I see between [USCF] A players and experts is this: A players [usually] know openings but experts know what to do after the opening. [Experts often fade in transition MG to EG.] So I'd suggest study mainline openings that (you enjoy &) lead to pawn structures with plans you understand. Play thru GM games where they occur and look at how the MG plan is realized. Try to use the opening to steer the games into structures where you know what to do.  .... Otherwise, concerning the first question, I play the Tarrasch against almost everything except e4 and like it a lot.  If you decide to play it I can tell you how I study it & you can do what makes sense for you.

Thanks for the response ... I think this is the way I want to go, then maybe collect any pgn's of my games I accumulate for a coach to later analyze once I am able to get into a middlegame without being more than 2 pawns behind.  I don't have lofty goals, but to play classical chess and be able to read annotated game books over the past century which cover some of the openings would be nice.

Thanks, I'll definitely take you up on any advice as to how to get the most out of the Tarrasch! Yeah, I simply do not know what I want to play other than probably classical, open, active positions with more piece play (I do not even know if that is my style, but seems to conform to "respected" advice for the learner).

As far as "studying", I like to do (and need to keep doing) short-sequence problems with decisive outcomes (tactics and fairly short endgame sequences).  Therefore, regarding "openings", I am merely looking for ideas beyond my whims and something to play when friends occasionally challenge me. I play somewhat randomly in this regard, but feel like I would have been better served had I stuck to a consistent repertoire (well, at least the first 3-5 moves at least), collected my pgn's, and periodically sent them to some high level master to analyze).   

Thanks ... that answers that! 

Sorry, I saw this post and wanted to get back to it later, but couldn't find it again later. So a bit late, but hopefully still helpful. 

I think you're overcomplicating it. When you say that you want to learn main line theory, what you need to realize is that main line opening theory usually starts around move 8 and can continue to move 30 in some extreme lines. This is absolutely not what you want to do. In fact, if I'm understanding your questions correctly, you're more worried about studying the first 5 moves or so, to get a good start to your games. 

The first 5 moves can be understood with general opening principles. I'll try and show you what I mean. First I'll formulate the opening principles as I see them and then I'll try and give a few examples on how using them can help you play normal and strong openings. 

The general opening principles: 
1. White wants to get the pawncenter e4 and d4. Black wants to prevent this. If white does get e4 and d4, black wants to try and destroy this as soon as possible by exchanging one of those pawns or by trying to get one of them to go forward.
2. Both sides want to develop their pieces. White can usually get away with being a little bit more active/aggressive than black can, but in general we want to develop our pieces to nice active places that help us fight for the center. We want to play with our pieces only once, because playing twice with them loses time that could have been used to get the other pieces into the game.
3. We want to make our king safe, which is almost always done by castling (which also brings the rook into the game). We usually want to try and castle quickly. 

Let's look at examples.

1. Getting or preventing the e4-d4 center for white.
To 1. e4 black usually responds 1. ...c5 or 1. ...e5. This directly prevents the e4-d4 center, cause black would take that pawn. To 1. d4 black can also play 1. ... d5, but also 1. ...Nf6 is common. Both moves prevent white from playing 2. e4. We can also see that 1. e4, Nc6 is not a normal opening move, as it does nothing to prevent 2. d4, as the d-pawn is protected by the queen, whereas after 1. d4, Nf6, 2. e4 is not protected and therefore not possible.

This fight can go on a few moves. Let's look at some basic openings.

A. 1. d4, d5. 2. c4: the queen's gambit. If black takes, 2. ... dxc4, 3. e4 gives white the e4-d4 center. There are other options, some might even be a tiny bit better, but e4 is definitely critical, as it gives white the e4-d4 center. One of the main moves after 1. d4, d5; 2. c4, dxc4; 3. e4 is that black counters in the center with 3. ...e5. Why? Cause black wants to destroy the e4-d4 center. 
B. After 1. d4, Nf6; 2. c4, e6 white can play 3. Nc3. Why this knight first and not Nf3 to get ready to castle? Because 3. Nc3 'threatens' to play e4, gaining that e4-d4 center. What can black do to prevent e4? Well, there are two main moves: 1. d4, Nf6; 2. c4, e6; 3. Nc3, Bb4 and 1. d4, Nf6; 2. c4, e6; 3. Nc3, d5: both moves prevent e4 again. Note that black pins the knight with Bb4, so the white knight can't take back on e4 if white were to play 4. e4. 
C. After 1. e4, e5; 2. Nf3, Nc6; 3. Bc4, Bc5 white usually plays 4. c3. Why not Nc3 or castle? In fact, c3 is making it much harder to develop Nb1 to a decent square to fight for the center. Well, that's all because white hopes to get the e4-d4 center. And in fact, white can get it in this specific line. Just to get a feel for the fight for e4-d4 I'll give you a theoretical line: 1. e4, e5; 2. Nf3, Nc6; 3. Bc4, Bc5; 4. c3, Nf6; 5. d4, exd4; 6. cxd4 (success for white!); 6. ... Bb4+; 7. Bd2, Bxd2; 8. Nxd2 (white has protected e4, which was only protected by some tactics before). But now, before white can enjoy the center too much, black has 8. ...d5! to break it all up again. 
D. In the Kings' Indian white can get that center uncontested. 1. d4, Nf6; 2. c4, g6; 3. Nc3, Bg7; 4. e4, 0-0; 5. Nf3, d6; 6. Be2. But still the battle for the center is very important: black can't let white have it, so black will now counterpunch in the center with 6. ... e5 or 6. ...c5 (or ... c6 and ....d5). There are other openings where black does give white full control over the center. These are exceptions to the general principles. They might be playable, some might be good if you know what you're doing, but they are in that sense more 'advanced' and less 'beginner' openings. 

2. Developing your pieces as efficiently as possible:
In the examples above you've seen many developing moves too. Most of the time they are directed towards that fight in the center. I think those examples are pretty clear. Other important aspects are to develop actively and to develop each piece only once. A few examples: 
A. After 1. d4, Nf6; 2. c4, e6; 3. Nc3, Bb4 4. Bd2 would be a sideline. One of the drawbacks you could point out is that it's not developing actively, but chances are that it will also be in the way later on. If you have to move this piece away at move 10 to make way for your rooks, you'd have violated the principle of not moving your piece twice. There is an art to doing this as effectively as possible and you'll get better and better at it when your middlegame understanding improves as well. 
B. Opening lines as 1. e4, d5; 2. exd5, Qxd5 are essentially violating opening principles, as after 3. Nc3 the queen has to move away again, making black play with the same piece twice. This happens a lot when players start wandering around with their queens too soon. I'm not saying the Scandinavian is unplayable or losing, this might be one of the better openings where black plays the same piece twice, but making your opponent move the same piece twice (developing with tempo) is essentially a win for our side. 
C. Making unnecessary pawn moves are a clear sign of weaker players. Why is it bad? Because it violates the principle of developing your pieces as efficiently as possible. If you play a pawn move like h3, when there was nothing to fear from a possible pin with Bg4, you just wasted a chance to play one of your pieces to an active square. In essence you've wasted just as much time with that h3 move as you would waste from playing Bf1-e2 that move and Be2-c4 the next in stead of Bf1-c4 in 1 go. 
D. When you don't know where to move your piece yet or when you don't have an active place just yet, it might be right to just wait a little bit with developing that piece. One example: 1. d4, d5; 2. c4, c6 (black defends d5 with a pawn, because after 1. d4, d5; 2. c4, Nf6, 3. cxd5; Nxd5 white gains the center with 4. e4); 3. Nf3, Nf6; 4. Nc3, e6; 5. e3, Bd6; 6. Bd3, 0-0; 7. 0-0, Nbd7: now what? We have battled for the center, but are not able to get the d4-e4 center, cause black has defended against that with the d5-pawn. How are we to develop Bc1? It can only go to d2, but that's a sorry square for our bishop. Maybe we should wait with developing this bishop and see if we can find another square for it. The opening could continue like this: 1. d4, d5; 2. c4, c6; 3. Nf3 (develop piece 1), Nf6; 4. Nc3 (develop piece 2), e6; 5. e3 (to develop Bf1 and to protect pawn c4), Bd6; 6. Bd3 (develop piece 3), 0-0; 7. 0-0 (king safe), Nbd7; 8. Re1 (develop piece 4), b6; 9. e4! And now we can see that Bc1 could in fact be developed to g5, a much better square than d2. Here we do play e4 and give up on the dream of getting the e4-d4 center (black does play 9. ... dxe4) but we do get the e4-square for our pieces. We also do this so we can develop Bc1. 

This post has gotten quite long. I could offer more example, also on what happens when you castle too late, but that is very situational. I hope I did illustrate my main point though. Almost any openings can be looked at from the perspective of the above mentioned opening principles. If your move adheres to these principles and does not fail tactically, you have probably made a theoretical move or at the very least a solid and strong opening move. I understand that I'm a stronger player, but my experience is that when I play a weaker player, for example an 1800 player, there are almost always 1 or 2 moves in the first 10-15 moves that are clearly not as efficient as they could have been. With lower rated players, like 1400s or lower, it's not uncommon for there to be 4 inefficient moves in the first 10 moves. If I have been as efficient as possible, chances are big that my position is already better and that I have a pleasant middlegame to play. That's where the battle really starts and where the battle is normally won. That's where and when you punish bad openings. And from looking at games from lower rated players (usually my students), I've noticed that again with reasonably efficient developing moves, you can have a perfectly good and playable middlegame to look forward to, even if you yourself aren't 100% efficient either. And that is why I'll always say to beginners to not spend any more time on the opening and just adhere to opening principles and focus on tactics and basic middlegame strategy.

Danny-- Here are my random thoughts on the Tarrasch. I'd be very interested in stronger players telling me how wrong I am. -Bill

My thoughts on the Tarrasch,… I’ve played it against a bunch of A players & experts but only 1 master so take what I say with a grain of salt.  To start, you basically need the first few moves, where the pieces go and typical tactics. Schiller’s book Complete defense to queen’s pawn openings explains this really well. [It is the only book of his I like by the way.] Sergiu Samarian has a thin pamphlet from 1970 that I guess became 1 chapter in his 1974 book of QGD. Either is enough theory to start and more than one can memorize. There are websites where chess games on masters & above are searchable. I collected a bunch (100) of Tarrasch games, mostly where black won, then wrote up annotations 3x for each game: first pass was me explaining what I understood. Second pass was looking the line up in books. Third was turning the computer analysis on. While doing this I recorded tactical shots in the games as puzzles that I go thru periodically. I guess I have 90+ of them by now. Key games where black lost I tried to find what could be done better and explain it. Bezgodov has a book on the Tarrasch with lots of well annotated games too as does Collins. I’ve played thru most of these. I also play it against Shredder set at 2300.

But I played it in OTB tournaments after playing thru maybe 20 games and the 20 page chapter in Samarians QGD book and did fine. I was no Tarrasch expert but expertise is relative. I also had someone play it against me, transposing from an English, and was completely frustrated at how hard the Tarrasch is to break.

Let me go thru the first few moves:

1.d4 d5 2. c4 e6

 [many white players will play Nf3 first. It doesn’t matter.]

3.Nc3 c5

Now here an amazing number of players will play Nf3. This allows black to play cxd then e4. This is not strictly Tarrasch but it is such a fun and aggressive line I’d suggest playing thru a few games with it and if you get a chance to pay it go for it with gusto.

Here also many white players will play e3. This is given only a few pages in most books but it happens a lot so needs to be understood. There are 4 possible outcomes: You get an isolated QP & try to push d4 or attack the kingside. White gets one. Often this turns into a QGA with an extra tempo for black. Double IQP. You want one where ideally you have good bishop & white is left with bad [dark sq] bishop & You can control king file and outpost at e4 but not white. If you have one of these and play well you can win. Lastly, white exchanges cxd then lets you push c4 then later b5! etc. This is an interesting game and you can also win these a lot.

4. cxd exd 5.Nf3 Nc6

A few minor options here for white. The right moves for black are intuitively obvious usually.   At this point 6.dxc5 is current played and leads to a slightly better endgame for white. At higher levels it is good to know these lines and have practiced playing the endgame vs. a computer. At low levels, often players are much weaker in the endgame than MG. Also the old line here was  6.Bf4 Nf6 7.e3  and there are at least 2 easy ways for black to play here: c4 or 6. … cxd Nxd4 then Bb4. Both equal: blacks play is intuitive and free in both.

6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Ne7 8.OO OO

This is the normal position of the main line Tarrasch. White has several plans here. 9.dxc is common. Bxc5 is fine for black but I like to play the Tarrasch gambit which is 9.dxc d4!?  Theory says white is better but I think there are options for black with interest not within theory. The idea is simple: you want to play as black Bf5, Be4, Qd5 double rooks on e file if possible maybe play h5-h4 maybe Qf5 or Qh5 and generally when you get a free move put a piece closer to the white king. White wants to stop this by setting a fire on the queenside but often players dawdle when they get up in material.

9.Bg5  This is the main line. Black has to do cxd &h6 now or c4 [&h6 soon].  In the first 9…. cxd 10 Nxd h6 Be3 You want to put pressure on the backward pawn on e2 by Bg4 and Re8 in various orders. You have more space so want to keep more space [e.g. if white plays Qa4 to get freer you play Bd7 threaten a discovered attack to encourage white to go back]. There are a lot of tactics here: Rxe3 is common. An idea situation for black would be to play Bg4 and after white plays h3 Bf5-e4 double rooks on king file, play Qd7-f5 etc and push d5-d4. If the bishop is on b6 then even d4-d3 sac-ing it to open the bishop against the white king. Of course white will be doing what she/he can to prevent this and tie black down to passive defense.

Generally, black has more space, activity and free play but an IQP. Black wants to use activity to keep white off balance, wants to try to keep as many minor pieces on the board as possible. If black doesn’t get pressure on e2 then swapping rooks is usually good for black.

Thanks for the detailed response!  Yes, I do overcomplicate and overthink (doesn't seem to stop the blunders, tactical or positional), mainly because I do not play games hardly nor study the openings, so I end up thinking about what to play "in the future."  Your comment about theory starting at move 8 is spot-on.  One of the frustrations for lower level folks like me is that every chess idiot knows some theory ... although they don't understand it, they are still playing 3400 level moves early.  Opening books will give very little for deviations from the early moves,  usually hardly any.  If a mainline starts on move 8, they may give an option or even a few for deviations by the opponent on say move 2, but even if they give 3 or 4 deviations on move 2, the subsequent lines are often just a string of moves, or even if there are words to each move, there is often not much else in terms of other possible moves on moves 3 and 4 of the variation.

I think what could be a great idea is a "pre-" opening repertoire, kind of like what you did your great post, but directed toward players with specific preferences (for instance, lower level folks who prefer middlegame attacks, those who prefer to keep their pawn islands to a minimum, those who prefer the endgame, etc).   For those who like whatever type of game, here are the moves, variations, and explanations as to how to get to move 7 of a Ruy Lopez or Open Sicilian or QGD or whatever the player's stylistic preference may dictate.  

The problem I have with "principles" is at my level I am playing 1300 level moves against 3400 level moves for the first several moves ... even if I am 300 points tactically stronger than an opponent, it often cannot make up for being down a pawn with a shattered pawn structure and loose king.  A lot of openings seem to have lines where the opponent plays a natural move, only to be punished by a trap that would be very difficult for 1200 player to figure out, but maybe not so much for a 2100 level player.  It is further a problem with Swiss tournaments where you play each opponent only once ... maybe I could show some sort of tactical or endgame superiority in a match against a similar-rated opponent who mostly wins based on traps, but often never get a chance to prove it.  Nonetheless, I understand what you are saying and showing with the example lines you have given.   It just frustrating to lose to some trap against an 1100-level player with a tactical rating 500 points lower than mine preaching to me that I didn't understand the strategic and tactical needs of an early position that they have clearly memorized. 

I analyzed a number of serious games I played years ago ... I found that if I got move 6 "in the book" or my opponent deviated first before that, my win percentage shot up approximately 30%.  Surprisingly, I found in a group of nearly 40 games, I made over 150 "inaccuracies" (not counting blunders or mistakes) while my opponents who were similarly rated made ZERO (!) ... this blew my mind.  I scored around 50% in these games ... I usually made the first "mistake" an average of 3 moves earlier  than my opponent, but overall I averaged 1 less "blunder" per game.  

Now generally I prefer games where both players are out of book and there are infinite possibilities, but with databases, opening books, and ease of access to opening lines, it is much harder for even a lower-level player to be ignorant of the first 6 moves of an opening.  And even if lower-level games deviate earlier, isn't it better to play something consistently and familiar so that when you get to the point where you are making it to move 8 with a relatively even assessment, that you now know which resources to go to for more information?   

I will review your post again, thanks again for the very helpful response.  

This is great stuff, thanks for the details on the early moves ... this will certainly encourage me to take up the Tarrasch.  I already have the Collins book.  Saw Bezgodov's book, but wasn't sure how helpful it would be to me .... I have Bezgodov's book on the Baltic Defence (he calls it the "Liberated Bishop Defense"; I enjoy his writing a lot, but sometimes he comes across to me as a bit infomercially with some of the unconventional openings he chooses to write about and his attempts to re-name them).  

I will most certainly go over this post repeatedly.  When I do play, rarely do I face 1.d4, but when I do, I notice that I get some sort of ""QGD guilt", meaning that when I have the chance to play the Tarrasch, I end up aiming for an Alatortsev or Tartakower because I feel like that is what I am "supposed" to do for long-term learning.  But I am really liking that the QGD Tarrasch can be used against most non-1.e4 openings.   I see you mentioned that it does not matter if White plays 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 ... Do you pretty much play ...c5 by move 3, when White does not play either 2.c4 or 2.Nf3 on move 2 (except if White played b4, for instance)?  Thanks again for the details on the early moves ... this is what is helpful and often seems missing from resources that cover the QGD Tarrasch.  

It is nice to hear this from an IM and FIDE-certified trainer, but man are there mixed messages as to how to best learn chess apart from tactics and endgames ... Ruy, Open Sicilian, QGD, Slav, Nimzo.  It almost sounds like you might approve the London as White, Baltic Defense as Black against 1.d4, and the Scandinavian against 1.e4 for the time-starved student.  I had tried playing these in a few OTB tournaments years ago to "simplify" my life ... in 11 games as Black against 1.e4, I got to the Qa5 Scandi only 3 time, somewhat annoying, but can't say it affected any results ... I only remember jointly winning a U1400 section with a tough victory over a 900-level boy who was 9 years old whose only loss was to me in that weekend tournament (me and other winner drew each other in our game and he didn't match up with the 9 year-old) ... that boy took 3rd place behind us co-winners, but he would be rated 1700 level 6 months later.   

Tartakower is a very good defense to QG - if you like it you should play it! Tarrasch is active and fun. (I like & play both but mainly Tarrasch lately.) As for your questions: lots of move order options but generally if you want the Tarrasch it's best to just go for it right away d5, e6, c5. I think Tarrasch is particularly fun against the English opening (1.c4) as they often want to delay the confrontation in the center and Tarrasch accelerates it. I like Collins book a lot for the annotated games but it doesnt present an idea about how to organize the opening in your mind. An IM here (Mat Bobula I think is his name) has a chess.com short course on the Tarrasch that is really very good.

to keep it short and sweet, yes. This type of formation can be played agaisnt virtually all of white's hypermodern responses and you will get playable positions.

But it can be psychologically dangerous. To play with a system like indifference to various set-ups means you are that much likely to miss the nuances of each white formation. you may end up, giving way too much control of e5 to a bird player starting a kingside attack, or a b3 player can inflict you a d pawn isolani with a well timed c4, or a b4 player can get a nice space advantage on the queenside, or you may play generic moves and end up in a worse position vs a g3 player.

You have to show each reply the respect it deserves, whether you play the same or different agaisnt each reply.

objection, white wastes a move with exd5 in scandinavian, but what else?

For a few years the Tarrasch was my main defense. It can be played against almost any white flank opening, but there are some move order issues. You can't just close your eyes to what white is doing. A couple of examples.

Nimzo-Larsen. 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 c5 3.e3! Nc6 4.Bb2 Nf6 5.Bb5 is a healthy reversed Nimzo-Indian for white. I don't remember the details, but I do remember concluding black should avoid this, and my formula was only to play ...c7-c5 after either white already played d2-d4 or black already played ...O-O. So, 1.Nf3 d5 2.b3 Nf6 3.Bb2 e6 4.e3 Be7 5.Be2 (5.d4 is a reasonable Colle-Zukertort for white) 5...O-O 6.O-O c5 etc.

English-Reti. 1.c4 e6 2.Nf3 d5 3.g3 c5 4.Bg2 Nf6 5.O-O Nc6 6.b3 Be7 7.Bb2 O-O 8.e3!? Keene in Flank Openings calls this a Neo-Catalan. This is a real system, recommended in Soltis's Winning with 1.c4 (or maybe it was his Winning with the English, he wrote two different repertoires). White's idea is Nb1-c3, c4xd5 and d2-d4, with pressure on d5, the same as a Tarrasch. Of course if white had played c4xd5 anytime earlier then black would have taken back ...e6xd5 and now could just develop the bishop. In a pure Tarrasch IQP move order black would meet the double-fianchetto with either ...Bc8-g4 or ...Nf6-e4 (or both), but that's not possible here. So 8...b6 9.Nc3 and here 9...dxc4! is the move, but to play this black needs to know two things: (1) How to answer 10.Ne5?!. (2) How to play the middlegame after 10.bxc4. It's not a Tarrasch Defense, that's for sure! But I didn't find any better system for black if white plays this way. Keene quotes quite a few games, one to start with is Timman - Spassky, Sochi 1973.

10...Ne8! Nice.

There is a detail in Keene's Nimzo-Larsen book that I am not remembering and for various reasons I don't have time to look it up in my database. Some line with c2-c4, c4xd5 ...e6xd5, and at the right moment d2-d4. Black can choose between IQP or hanging pawns but I concluded this version is annoying and black should avoid it.

Keene wrote some quite good books before going over to the dark side.

pfren: Nice game! Do you recall offhand the opponent of Geller in his game? [or some other detail that I can use to narrow a search]

Thanks! -Bill