Queen's gambit good for 1000-1200 rated players?

I've been looking into opens a bit (mainly because I wasn't too happy with my kind-of-self-evolved open), and I think queen's gambit looks to be a good one for 1000 - 1200 rated players.  I'm about to put in some time to study it, and I'd welcome your comments.

It seems to offer a few early tricks against unaware opponent in QGA (here I think a < 1000 player may not notice, but 1200 will try his/her hardest to defend that pawn and fall into the trap because those would be pretty much the exact moves I'd have done).  Another advantage is that it isn't seen too often at 1200 (at least I've not met it during my games).

 If QGD, the white position isn't too bad at all and black still has many opportunities for mistakes (although not nearly as bad as (or as immediate as) those QGA.

It's kind of cheap to rely on tricks, but it works really well at my chess level so far.  The tricks that worked at 800/1000 no longer works at 1200, so here's where QGA comes in.  Playing chess, in these cases, is kind of like fishing, i.e. still very enjoyable.

The goal is to beat opponents int he 1200 rating.  Thx.

Yeah, a lot of 1200s try to defend the pawn, and get a terrible position. 

It's a decent enough opening for beginners, although I'd still recommend 1.e4. But I guess the QG is fine, principled.

I appreciate your feedbacks. 

I'm hoping for comments on your thoughts (hopefully based on your experience) WRT my plan to use queen's gambit on other 1200 rated players.  So far, after reading from this morning and trying to apply it in games, I've not gotten any QGA opponents.  With QGD, the game just drags on and on, which is OK I suppose, but I'd rather have a quicker game.  (Mainly, I intend to teach queen's gambit to my son for his tournaments and kids tend not to like slow play.)

@jenjaias  Your line of thinking puzzles me because I'm thinking that to become a better chess player one needs to know the tricks (in a way, 1. e4 is a trick in itself, not too dangerous, but still a trick... why not open with 1. a3, for example).

WRT to QGD, I wasn't able to remember all the variants (actually, I only remember the very next Nc3 move) so I've been improvising (feels like I'm re-inventing the wheel).  I think that may be why the games feel so laborious and slow. But I think another 2-3 days of reading and practice games should help there.

After re-reading my own posts (again, thanks for the replies, I appreciate your feedbacks), I realized that my question isn't all that clear and perhaps an example answer may help clarify.

An example answer: I started at about 800 when I joined 5 months ago.  It took a while to get to 900 until somebody used some variant of the fried liver trick on me.  I learned it and used it (yes, it isn't comfortable but hey you'll learn something just like me), that brought me to 1100.  So, if somebody asks me if fried liver works on 1000 rated players, I'd say "based on my experience, yes".

So, I'm asking about queen's gambit WRT 1200-rated players.

QGbit is a fun and nice opening to play.It gives closed positions with sound tactical play if you have the eye for it.Defending the pawn is risky though.Just remember to play 3.kc3 no matter what,followed by kf6 and you will be fine with the central squares.

Those in 1000-1200 range can play any opening as long as they follow basic opening rules - 1. Develop your minor pieces ( bishops and knights ) quickly 2-Try to control center 3-Kings safety ( castle early ). As these games are decided not by great strategies but by mistakes by either player. Still most coaches believe that playing open games ( those starting  with 1.e4 ) are easier to understand for new player so better for them. But when playing black one should play 1.d4 d5 to have equal presence in center.

I don't agree

I think london system is the best 

A good coach teaches the basic and best principles first.So i fully agree with arunchess.London system is only a trick which a beginner cannot fully understand and will fall apart without sound opening priciples to back up.So teaching London system first is vain and a good coach will never do such a thing.

 Thanks for the tips/advice.

@devansh_rc

Thanks, the London system looks very interesting.  It seems easier to learn on my casual search.  I'll definitely take a look into it.  We aren't afraid of tactics and hand-to-hand combat; so perhaps the London system can fit well.  I'm going to take some time away from QG to investigate the LS.

@chessboogie

Good tips.  Here's what I'm thinking: my son's chess club usually do the following: review games (mostly games their teammates played), basic principals (center squares, development), and tactics.  There's no opening.  So, I think other clubs are similar.  Why not learn a few open tricks?  I taught my son the fried liver trick (learned it when someone else used on me here) and he's successfully used it a few times (one of his opponents even mentioned that he's now going to use it on the next person... pretty soon it might spread every in USCF : )

@arunchess

I just think QG has the potential for something like this: 25% of 1200-rated opponents not having heard about it and defend that black c-pawn.  So only need to fight hard 75% of the games.

Would your comments be different, if the goal is to win 1200 players?  Do you have any suggestions on what to do?

the queens gambit is good for players rated from 100-10000.

As a beginner, I highly urge opening concepts over opening theory, but if you must learn an opening, I tell people there are only 2 you should even remotely consider.  The Ruy Lopez and the Queen's Gambit.  Both openings follow opening concepts to the letter.  You should play both openings from both sides.  If your opponent plays something different, don't worry about the theory.  Use opening concepts to get through it.  For example, if you play 1.d4 and they answer 1...Nf6, follow opening principals and take the center.  2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 (to get in e4) Bg7 4.e4 d6.  What you have here is a King's Indian Defense.  DO NOT spend hours on end trying to study the King's Indian Defense as a 1200 player.  Simply use opening concepts for these.  But when he or she does play 1...d5 (or 1...e5 against 1.e4), use what you learned in the QGD and Ruy Lopez because many of these concepts are used in many other openings and in general aspects of chess!

At the 1000-1200 level, one advantage of not playing 1.e4 is it often gets both sides off of opening preparation.  It's easy to forget what it feels like to be a new chess player, where your only opening knowledge is "develop pieces, castle, don't move the same piece twice."

That sounds great, and it works, but it can lead to some practical problems.  At the lower levels, a vast majority of games start 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4, with either colour, and this leads to some practical problems.  If you are black, you can be subject to easy-to-play attacks and gambits no matter what you do, and relying on principles instead of hard calculation is a mistake ... and at low levels, you can't rely on your calculation either.  If your opponent has played more games in this position, he likely wins, just because he has learned more patterns by osmosis if nothing else.

Another 'problem' is the Giuoco Pianissimo and/or Four Knights, wjere both sides develop naturally, perfectly, principled ... but the game is a clogged mess, with nothing exchanged and no natural pawn breaks.  It's not easy to play, not especially fun, and there's a high chance at lower levels that you get something like this in any given game.

By playing 1.d4 (or really anything that isn't 1.e4), you can avoid this.  Both of you will be playing normal moves, both will make mistakes, but you will be playing chess on equal footing.  That's pretty good.  The more you play 1.d4 (or whatever), the more experience you will get here and let you play the positions better, something your opponents likely won't have if they always play 1.e4.  I went from 1400 to 1600 or so just by switching to 1.d4 for a year back in the day,

I like to play Phildor defence against e4,and it works well most of the time!

Bottom line, you can do anything, play 1.a4 or 1.h3, and beat a 1200. It has nothing to do with the opening, but because 1200s hang pieces all the time, and if you can hang one piece less, then you'll win the game. It has nothing to do with queens gambit or not, etc. 

So if you want to beat a 1200, just learn tactics, and that's pretty much it. This actually applies up to 1600 as well.

1600's dont hang pieces that often,so you  cannot give the same 'tatical wise' approach to all.

"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)
"... A remark like 'games are rarely decided in the opening' does not really do justice to the issue. ... even if an initial opening advantage gets spoiled by subsequent mistakes, this doesn't render it meaningless. In the long run, having the advantage out of the opening will bring you better results. Maybe this warning against the study of openings especially focuses on 'merely learning moves'. But almost all opening books and DVD's give ample attention to general plans and developing schemes, typical tactics, whole games, and so on. ..." - IM Willy Hendriks (2012)

"... For players with very limited experience, I recommend using openings in which the play can be clarified at an early stage, often with a degree of simplification. To accomplish this safely will take a little study, because you will have to get used to playing wiith open lines for both sides' pieces, but you can't eliminate risk entirely in the opening anyway. ... teachers all over the world suggest that inexperienced players begin with 1 e4. ... You will undoubtedly see the reply 1 ... e5 most often when playing at or near a beginner's level, ... After 2 Nf3, 2 ... Nc6 will occur in the bulk of your games. ... I recommend taking up the classical and instructive move 3 Bc4 at an early stage. Then, against 3 ... Bc5, it's thematic to try to establish the ideal centre by 4 c3 and 5 d4; after that, things can get complicated enough that you need to take a look at some theory and learn the basics; ... Of course, you can also play 1 d4 ... A solid and more-or-less universal set-up is 2 Nf3 and 3 Bf4, followed in most cases by 4 e3, 5 Be2 and 6 0-0. I'd rather see my students fight their way through open positions instead; however, if you're not getting out of the opening alive after 1 e4, this method of playing 1 d4 deserves consideration. ... a commonly suggested 'easy' repertoire for White with 1 Nf3 and the King's indian Attack ... doesn't lead to an open game or one with a clear plan for White. Furthermore, it encourages mechanical play. Similarly, teachers sometimes recommend the Colle System ..., which can also be played too automatically, and usually doesn't lead to an open position. For true beginners, the King's Indian Attack and Colle System have the benefit of offering a safe position that nearly guarantees passage to some kind of playable middlegame; they may be a reasonable alternative if other openings are too intimidating. But having gained even a small amount of experience, you really should switch to more open and less automatic play." - IM John Watson in a section of his 2010 book, Mastering the Chess Openings, Volume 4

"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)

Thanks so much for pulling that quote, Spongey!!  I have a young son who wants to play in his first tournament, and what Watson says is very, very helpful.

I'm going to have him continue to play 1. e4.  I'm personally leaning towards 1. d4 for my own White repertoire, but maybe I'll play 1. e4 too since I feel pretty raw as a player.