Replies to 1.d4

I love then Albin Counter Gambit when I play against people and one of the ones i am playing right now fell for the lasker trap which is in the Albin Counter Gambit

This is the trap

The Budapest defense is in no way a Big main opening. It is one of those lines that you have to know how to play against but it is not a bigger complex then the QG declined and the other indian systems.

I like how you set out rating levels that you recommend to play/learn them.

I would add the main ones you missed are the

QGD tarrasch

The Chigorin

Queens indian If your opponent doesnt allow the nimzo

also the slav as Dortam said

Replies to 1. d4?

Abandon game!

Most of those lines have mistakes on both sides. (For example, the a3 line against the Albin is much stronger than what you posted and I would almost go as far as to say that it might be a refutation).  

I believe you got some of the recommended rating levels the wrong way round. The Nimzo, King's Indian and QGD are difficult, highly positional openings, more suitable for higher ratings. On the other hand, the Benko and maybe the Stonewall Dutch can be learned easily. I would recommend the Queen's Gambit Accepted for players starting out. The Grunfeldt is just a really difficult opening.

the king's indian is probably one of the most complicated and theory heavy out of the bunch, suggesting for under 1300 players seems rather optimistic. The same is true for the benoni except it is just not good as an opening and gives white in almost all the cases a good game.

QGD, QGA and Classical Slav are suitable for beginners. 1400>

I would place Benoni, Nimzo, classical and stonewall dutch in intermediate 1600>

Advanced might consider Benko (I put it here because it's extremely technical), leningrad dutch and kings indian. 2000>

Semi slav and Gruenfeld I think are master level openings 2200+

I'm not going to categorise things such as the budapest of albin, because honestly they're just bad, both in theory and for a players development.

just wondering what criteria you guys are using for "level placement"

What criteria? Totally arbitrary criteria, it seems...

Grunfield or KID...both options are good.

In response to you analysis on the Benko

None of them are based on anything concrete of course, since two 1600 players could differ vastly in their knowledge of various areas, and so some defences may be appropriate for one player, but not another. My categories were based on my experience with various defences, as well as how I believe the typical persons understanding of the game develops:

For mine I put 1400+ as the starting point where someone may consider and benefit from learning some opening theory. In regard to playing against 1.d4 only really QGD, QGA and slav are acceptable in my opinion.

The upper end of my placement is based on experience. The semi slav and gruenfeld are hugely complex and were way above my head when I tried to learn them (I have an outdated rating of ~1900ish FIDE, I believe im stronger now). Therefore I placed these two in a section for master level players (2200+)

The middle two categories are slightly less concrete:

The reason I placed the Benko, KID and leningrad in an 'advanced' 2000+ category is that although they are very difficult to play, I feel they are also quite practical, in that the KID and leningrad cut down preparation, since they can be used against 1.c4 and some others, while the Benko gives great practical chances OTB against weaker opposition. For this reason I felt that a non master player could definately use them to good effect, but probably not understand them very well.

The 1600+ category really just is comprised of defences I think could be approporiate for someone between the 1600 and 2000 range. I think this range is where positional knowledge begins to develop, so I placed some openings which I think violate opening principles, yet give something in return, which a 1600-2000ish player should be able to appreciate.

Stop Insulting this article.

I just changed it, to not Under 1300, but 1100+

Okay

Dont over react to it.  Sure some of the rating estimates arent correct, but the ones that are are being insulting are probably butt-hurt you have "their" opeing rated so low.  I play the Benko, and im not offended.

I know

I don't think 9b4 in the Classical KID is all that hot against a prepared player.

<<the king's indian is probably one of the most complicated and theory heavy out of the bunch, suggesting for under 1300 players seems rather optimistic. The same is true for the benoni except it is just not good as an opening and gives white in almost all the cases a good game.>>

The Modern Benoni is my favourite defence to 1d4. It's difficult and tactical .... and very often beyond the ability of <2000s to pin down so it gives very good practical results although the slower the time limit the better since it's easy for black to make a mistake too.