Queens Gambit

Do you like it?

I actually have a story for this one, but I'll give the short version. I used to be a 1. e4 player and my primary opening was the Scotch Game, but I seldom faced 1. d4 players. Anyway, I remember hearing about the Queen's Gambit somewhere. Apparently the opening went 1. d4 d5 2. c4 and I, disliking gambits in general, thought that White is just giving up a pawn. I didn't really understand how this was any good for White. I guess maybe White decoys Black's central pawn to the c-file, but this isn't worth a pawn, right? 

Never facing the Queen's Gambit and knowing absolutely zero theory on it (yeah, I wasn't the strongest chess player and I seldom played chess; plus, most of my friends were 1. e4 players), I thought I should play against a chess computer (naturally the computer is far stronger than I could have imagined as I was circa 1100 rating at the time, but I didn't know computers were THAT good). Anyway, the computer opened 1. d4 and I remember thinking how I knew 1. e4 better. I played symmetrical with 1...d5 and then the computer plays 2. c4. I just stared at the board for probably like an entire 5 minutes or more. I have never seen this opening in action before. I was frustrated at the computer playing dubious lines when I am trying to get better at chess. This "giving" me a pawn is stupid; how can I take advantage of it? I wrote down the games, but I have no idea where the scrap paper would be now (years later). All I remember was playing 2...e6 (only later learning that this was the "declined" variation and that it is heavily studied theory) and just getting crushed. I then played a second game as Black and the computer plays the same opening - so after more staring I accept with 2...dxc4 this time, and also get crushed. I HATED this opening. I didn't believe gambits were sound (not realizing that this opening is not considered a "true gambit") and I felt like the computer was trolling me. 

What did I do about this opening I hated? I studied it a ton. I probed for weaknesses. I experimented with variations. There must be some way to prove this opening as bad and discover the "bust" to it. The more I studied this opening I hated to face, then the more I realized that I liked White's position more than Black's - but I am trying to find out how to beat it as Black, not to play it for White! 

Kind of funny in hindsight, but I slowly went from hating this opening to using it as White. Guess what? All of that study into searching for a bust (unsuccessfully) made me perform well with the Queen's Gambit. Slowly, but surely, I began to like the Queen's Gambit, as White, more and more. Now it is my favorite opening that I play almost every chance I get! 

When I was a youngster... back in the Late Bronze Age... I used to play the QGD, for one reason:

I had found a weird-looking Qb1 line in this opening, and I enjoyed the look on people's faces when I played it in a rated tournament game. Some of them used to look at me like I needed a doctor.

The Queen move:

a) supports the e4 square

b) begins the attack on Black's King position

c) supports b2-b4 and a minority attack

d) clears the way for Rfc1.

lol - nice line @blueemu. Good surprise weapon just for the reactions alone

Also, pretty cool that this line is all opening theory.

Are you me? Cause that is my story as well.

I remember the exact line and blunder I made that caused me to look into this more as black. I tried so many defenses, before going to Nf6. But that research helped me and now, I occasionally use that blunder I made years ago on others: 

After starting with 1.e4 lines for a long time and kind of getting bored, I tried QG and I got hooked.

Cool  I don't think we are the same though. You played the "normal variation" with 3. e3 and I prefer the alternative 3. e4 central variation (e4 is more theory based in positional factors and the old Qf3 trap to win the a8 Rook doesn't apply because the e4 pawn blocks the scope from f3 to a8, but both are considered sound mainlines).