Sharp Black defenses

I'm about 1900-2000 elo (a bit out of practice), and I like to play sharp, tactical chess. My main defense against 1.d4 has been the King's Indian, but I wouldn't say that I ever played it particularly well; when I won, it tended to be through a combination of bluster and unsound rook sacrifices. Coming back to chess I find I'm a little daunted by the theory and complexity involved in it, and I'm wondering whether I should switch to something like the semi-slav - sound, and potentially very sharp. However, while I realise compromise is going to be involved whatever opening I pick, it seems to be much easier for white to turn the game into a very slow, stifling affair if he wants.

I usually play the Sicilian against 1.e4, but don't know whether to pick the dragon or najdorf as my main weapon. My problem with the dragon is that I can never seem to get a good, attacking position (the kind of position I play the dragon for) when white plays 9 0-0-0. However, I'm not especially attracted to the najdorf, it seems too complex and too much like black is just trying to survive the opening.

That's quite vague - I was hoping for more detailed suggestions, not just "play one of these 3 or 4 openings". I already talked a bit about what I thought about the semi-slav and dragon/najdorf sicilian.

Hi 11thHeaven, I don't understand your gripe about the Najdorf.  The Najdorf seems to be exactly what you want.  For a queen's pawn defence, have you considered the Benko Gambit?  You will enjoy heavy piece pressure on the a and b files, and a dangerous bishop on g7.  Even though you go a pawn down, the compensation and resulting endings are good for Black.

well, the grunfeld, KID, and dutch are the ways to go if you need to fight for a win, all of them dynamically imbalenced positionally speaking.

For white, who cares really? just find your own comfortable position you will be fine.

I used to play the semislav, but I quit because it was just too boring. Note that I enjoy positional games, even quiet games...but the problem was just being so cramped, with a rubbish piece on c8, in a dull and symmetrical position. Before you ask, I think most people avoid the Botvinnik and Moscow variations, that are the only chance to make the game fun.

Instead, you get a symmetrical position in which you can never really get some excitement, even after you break with with c5. There are exceptions of course, like in a recent Anand's game, but generally the semislav is really dull.

I play the Nimzo and Bogo Indian now. I find it much more interesting. The structures are much more fun to play, and as black you don't have any bad piece. The position is always unbalanced (just think at the eternal conflict of knight vs bishop), with each side having his own peculiarities and advantages to play for. With the d5 openings I feel black is just trying to emulate white.

Disadvantage is that the Nimzo has a lot of variations and subvariations: each side has several plans and themes. Studying theory is more complicated than in the semislav, where things are more easy to memorize.

For the Najdorf, you hit the nail on the head. You are indeed trying to survive during the opening. Leaving so much space and development to white is clearly gonna mean that you must have accurate defence. This translates in: you need to know a ton of theory just to survive. White plays natural moves, while you need to be prepared just to make it out of the opening alive.

But with great risks comes great rewards: you have a lot of chances for counterplay. Your counterattacks are going to be fearsome. I believe in no other opening you can go from being under so much pressure to a ferocious counterattack. Playing the Najdorf gives you the most interesting (and crazy) positions in all of chess.

If you don't like to get into such a dangerous situations there are other sicilians you can choose from. Sveshnikov would be what I played if there wasn't the Najdorf. I also suggest you to look into the Kan/Taimanov. I don't know a whole lot about them, but they are supposed to be safer. Plus the fact that they are less popular means your opponent shouldn't be too much booked up.

I would stay away from the dragon. The new versions of the Yugoslav attack (9.0-0-0 and even 9.g4!) are just too strong, and white seems to have a theorical advantage even against perfect play by black. Plus a lot, really a lot of people are well booked up against the dragon. I believe the dragon is so popular because of its name, but it's not an opening I would trust to be my main repertoire.

The hyper-accelerated dragon is much more solid, but of course you have  the Maroczy bind, where you'll be slowly strangulated; while you can have some counterplay (if you know what you're doing), you can hardly ever win.

In sum:

- against d4 don't play d5. Look up the Nimzo-Indian or the Grunfeld (I don't play it so I can't comment on it but it seems really cool and tactical)

- sicilian pick the Sveshnikov or the Kan.

no opening for black or white can guarantee you a tactical game 100% of the time your opponent has just about as much control over the game as you do. although i'd suggest playing the benko gambit for the pawn you get tons of pressure on the queen side with your fianchettoed darksquared bishop and your rooks on the a and b files

I shall add that the corrilary is also true.  No opening for Black or White can guarantee you a positional game.  In early 2012, I was playing the Slav Defense, rather than the Modern, which is what I play now, and the Slav is known for being a positional defense.  However, I've had White play the Geller Gambit on me more than once (5.e4 instead of 5.a4) and those games ended up wilder than the Modern Benoni, Flick Knife Attack with ...Nbd7.

I can go around saying that I play a positional White game (1.d4) and tactical Black game (Modern, Pribyl, Rat, and Wade), but there is no way that those descriptions would ever apply 100%.  I get wild games as White.  I get slow manouvering games as Black.

Hmm, I might try the sveshnikov. I've never given it a proper go, I've always been scared of being crushed positionally. But I think I'd like to try it, it looks like it can let black have a lot of fun. Thanks :)

I've messed around with the Dutch a little as black and I've found it pretty fun. Which variation would you reccomend? When I can, I like to fianchetto my light bishop on b6, but I don't know how regular this is. Can you reccomend any good resources for learning the Dutch?

Even this is flawed thinking.  I'm one that has played the Dutch on and off.  White has move orders that make certain Dutches bad.

For example:

1.d4 f5 2.c4 Nf6 3.Nc3 e6 4.Nf3 - Here, the Stonewall is HORRIBLE, allowing both Bf4 (without structural damage done to White) and Bd3.  4...Bb4 is correct, playing an improved Nimzo-Indian

1.d4 f5 2.Bf4 Nf6 3.e3 - Here the Leningrad is HORRIBLE.  3...g6 4.h4! h6 5.Nc3! with 6.Qf3! coming is bad for Black

Also, I have had MANY positional Dutch games.  It ain't a "catch all" defense for sharp play!

I have been playing the dutch for the past 2 years consistently. I know basically all of ins and outs of the proper move orders to reach the openings you want.

Unfortunately, the leningrad dutch is simply not that good against 1.d4.

Not because it is not a good opening, it is just simply the result of the opening move orders. Here is a brief guide of how I play the Dutch.

Well, I would play 1..f5 against 1.d4 everytime if i could, but the problem is white has countless variations deviating from the main line. They are basically the reversed sicilian gambits, and probably better tbh.

For example 1.d4 f5 2.e4 is very annoying to play against as black (the Staunton gambit is probably a bit better for white in my opinion), 2.Bg5 is  even worse to deal with (2..g6 is probably best, but i dont like black's position there, look at the entire line, ive excavated most of it, only finding white to be doing just good), and probably the safest continuation 2.Nc3 is also very enterprising.

Now this does not mean it is unplayable, it just means you have to deal with particular sidelines that are much more tactical and probably more advantageous than the particular main line with the g3 systems.

Against 1.d4, some of the people who want to play the classical dutch, or the stonewall dutch will likely play 1..e6 to avoid many of these annoying anti-dutch sidelines. As 2.Bg5 loses immediately, 2.Nc3 runs into 2..d5 and white really has nothing better than 3.e4 going into a french (which dutch players will likely have to know), and 2.e4 gives black the starting position of the french defense after 2..d5.

Therefore it makes sense to play (at a lower level), 1..e6 against 1.d4 rather 1..f5 if you don't want to be struggling in the opening.

Of course, I had to suffer about a couple months with 1..f5 to realize it was not fun for black, and the kingside weaknesses could be exposed more easily than in the mainlines!

Now, the dutch uniqely can be played against 1.c4, and i personally find the leningrad dutch after 1..f5 2.Nf3 Nf6 and black plays g6, bg7 and d6, as my favorite response. It is ironic that the leningrad can not be deviated away in the english than with 1.d4. You may not be able to play a normal classical dutch or stonewall against the english, which is why i play the leningrad against it. 

Curiously enough, my main concern is finding a proper defense to 1.nf3, as 1..f5 can be strongely met by 2.d3, and you probably need to do some exploration on this to understand why black is not doing well.

logically then against 1.nf3, i play 1..e6, meeting 2.e4 with d5 and a french, but what does black do after say 2.g3 or 2.c4? It is very difficult to say, and I am having many technical difficulties figuring out the proper setups that i like.

It should also be mentioned, that the early transposition to the leningrad after 1.d4 g6!? 2.Nf3 f5 does not help black as 3.h4! is going to decimate black's kingside. The exchange sacrifice on h5 will happen, and black suffers a long painful defense. perhaps 1.d4 g6 2.Nf3 d6 is the safest way to reach the leningrad, but white may just play 3.e4 and go into a pirc (which i despise for black)

On a sidenote after the following continuation 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 Bb4 is not an improved Nimzo-Indian as you indicate, it is simply different. In fact, it may be worse than the NID. After about a year of playing this, I simply find this continuation to be satisfactory and = for the most part, but if white plays accurately, he will probably get some positional advantage. Black will have his chances, as everyone blunders their advantage these days always.

You need to suffer with every part of the dutch to like it!

I had spent an entire month to research the staunton gambit, and found that white's game after d4 f5 e4 fxe4 Nc3 nf6 Bg5 Nc6 d5 Ne5 Qe2 (Qd4!?, but maybe d6 equalizes quickly!), is definitely fun for white to play, white simply gets the intiative, advantage or not, which i think white has.

2.nc3 is the safest way to get the advantage for white though, black hardly has any way to prevent such, so black just plays chess :P

Well, I would like to see top players play these sidelines and see how black is doing really. 

You have much to learn about the usage of databases. Looking at superficial scores without looking at the most optimal lines is suicide for your opening repotoire. Simply said: take a closer look.

Okay let's say each side plays the most reasonable continuation here:

1.d4 f5 2.Nc3 d5 3.Bf4 Nf6 4.e3 e6 5.Nb5!? (winning the bishop pair after Bd6, or even attaining a very strong position after the main line) Na6 6.c4 c6 (i believe this is black's best choice, Be7 7.Nf3, and white has an improved stonewall is some respects. The bishop is not as active (but this is not such a big deal) as on d6, but the knight on a6 is quite awful!) 7.Nc3 , white's positional advantage is quite evident compared to the normal stonewall dutch.

I fully endorse the Sveshnikov - for what it's worth to you. Exciting games as well as the thrill of playing with such a screwy pawn structure; and maybe it's just me but playing 5. ... e5 just feels great! 

you do not seem to realise that the dragon is a extremely popular sicilian it is one of the most agresive and what you are saying is false in no way does white have a "therotical advantage" and the yugoslav attack is something most dragon players are booked up on also dragon players don't hardly win they win alot of thier games

the h3-g4 idea is very critical, when i play the black side of the stonewall, you basically have to decline it, accepting the gambit is death.

@shepi13

1. d4 f5 ... hmm...

Seems too tempting to play 2. e4 after that. Apparently this is the Staunton Gambit. I can't see any reason on paper why this wouldn't be better for White than From's Gambit. The extra tempo that White has in this situation, coupled with Black's weakened kingside defense would be not only sound but downright crushing, surely.

Because of the pawn on d4, Black can't simply transpose into a King's Gambit to save himself; instead he gets something worse.

the froms gambit is entirely sound btw.

Well, the issue is that white has pushed his d pawn: this actually makes a difference, because he can't play d3 like he can after 1.nf3 f5 3.d3!

with the staunton, white doesnt have this option, and the game is less sharp, more positional, but still white is doing fine.