Sharpest reply to 1. d4?

What do you think is the sharpest (and most quiet) reply to 1. d4? 

I would say the sharpest replies are 1...b5, 1...Nc6 and 1...c5, while the most quiet reply is 1...d5. 

Do you agree? What's your thoughts? Let's have a cast of votes! I'll sum them up here, in the opening post. 

Does your model still consider the variations sharp after :

• 1.d4 Nc6 2.Nf3
• 1.d4 b5 2.e4 a6 3.Nf3
• 1.d4 c5 2.e3

You can't look only at the first move and decide whether it's sharp or not. Every opening move has both quiet and aggressive subvariations. In general you can't really hope to lure white in a tactical fight regardless of what he does. You can hope to mantain winning chances in every game only if you accept the occasional close maneuvring game.

To prove how is difficult to classify a first move as solid or sharp, a few examples:

1.d4 c5 definitely goes under the "solid" (rather than sharp) tag since play normally goes into very closed czech benoni formations.

1.d4 Nc6 is sharp only if white wants; white can answer in many different ways, his d4 pawn being already defended.

1.d4 b5!? leads to rather unexplored positions, but white can for sure play quietly to clain a modest edge.

1.d4 d5 has many sharp variations, the botwinnik gambit being a classical example.

I don't think that categorizing a first move makes much sense, but if i have to guess then 1...Nf6 might be the "must win situation" move, retaining a great flexibility. 1...f5 might be another idea.

Ah, Dutch ...f5 is often fun.

Hi coach (hicetnunc).  

My (new) model considers the 3 lines you mentioned like this: 

• 1. d4 Nc6 2. Nf3 - quiet 
• 1. d4 b5 2. e4 a6 3. Nf3 - very sharp 
• 1. d4 c5 2. e3 - quiet 

Do you agree?

bresando, I see your point. I should have asked the question differently. Instead of asking which reply to 1. d4 is the sharpest, I should have asked: which reply to 1. d4 is most likely to lead to sharp play. This question makes more sense. 

And let's be careful not to mix the terms. I asked about the sharpness of various replies, not the winning chances of these replies. This is two different things. 

By the way, you use the term "solid" as the opposite of the term "sharp". Is that really the term used normally? I thought the opposite of "sharp" was "quiet". I could be wrong.

You're probably right about the sharp/quiet pairing, sorry i'm not a native speaker.

I still think that the first move is not that important in this sense. It might be that 1...Nf6 gives white more flexibility if black wants to go all-out against an unambitious white setup, but in general the game is not going to become ultrasharp unless white agrees, regardless of what you choose(at least if you want a sound repertoire). The only important advice is to stay away from early black gambits (albin,budapest and so on) not because they are outright bad (better players than myself have championed these defenses, and i play the albin a bit) but because generally white almost always has a way to give the pawn back while retaining a tiny edge in a quiet position. It's not what you want.

You need to go deeper into the variations to determine if your game will be sharp or quiet. And the choice is not always yours only : white has his word to say

For example 1.d4 d5 2.c4 dxc4 is the Queen's Gambit Accepted (QGA)

Now, if white plays 3.e4, you can sharpen the game by replying something like 3...b5 => this is a sharp variation (you're hanging to your pawn and tactics will be important soon).

But if white plays 3.e3, then 3...b5? just doesn't work : 4.a4 c6 5.axb5 cxb5 6.Qf3 - so you'll have to play something else, like 3...Nf6, and you'll probably get a rather quiet position.

Some openings are more prone than others to allow sharp play, but it always take two to tango 

Now, here are some 1.d4 openings which usually offer sharp play to the black player :

- 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 d5 (Grünfeld defence)

- 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 (King's Indian defence)

- 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 (Modern Ben-Oni)

- 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 b5 (Benkö Gambit)

- 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 (Semi-Slav defence)

- 1.d4 f5 2.g3 Nf6 3.Bg2 g6 (Dutch Leningrad)

- 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e5 (Albin counter-Gambit)

I would have guessed even the 2nd line was quiet, but maybe it's not...Short just used it to beat Kasparov in their blitz match (see game #7) - a fairly closed position though...

My reason for asking this question the the first place is that I'm imagining tactical players standing a better chance in sharp positions, and strategically minded (positional) players standing a better chance of winning in quiet positions. Assuming this is correct, it seems like a good idea for tactical players to know which of their possible replies are more likely to bring them to a sharp position. And, of course, for more positionally inclined players to know which moves are more likely to bring them into more quiet positions. Wouldn't you agree? 

Thanks, hicetnunc. I will have a look at those openings when time permits. I don't know if the line Short used to beat Kasparov is sharp or not (since my understanding is limited). All I know is that a calculation a made indicates that's it's very sharp. I might be wrong.

RoseQ..., what answers do you think I want? And no, I do not consider myself a tactical player. Be careful not to make assumptions, they might lead you astray. 

I'm not looking for an answer "fitting my agenda", or what else you might be implying. I'm simply looking for answers by more experienced players, hoping to learn something. Is that okay with you?

RoseQ..., yes, I was asking: which replies to 1. d4 are most likely to lead to sharp play? And from that sentence you conclude I consider myself a tactical player, and that I want certain answers? That's kind of like pulling rabbits out of a hat. There is no way one can logically reach such conclusions, from the initial question. 

Oh, and your rating seems to indicate you being more experienced than I, not "way more experienced".

There aren't too many "sharp"replies to 1.d4 unless white follows with 2.c4 , when black can play the Budapest defense or Albin countergambit for example.  However, If white follows with 2. Nf3 or worse yet starts with 1.Nf3 there really is nothing black can do to avoid playing a more or less positional game, at least compared to double KP games.  The King's Indian seems to be the best attempt at getting into a dynamic counterattacking kind of game that people who normally play 1.e4 as white would like, although the Dutch has its appeal for some, including Nigel Short. Also the QG accepted or the Tarasch gambit lines can lead to some fairly open tactical types of positions for black, and the Tarasch at least can be played even if white messes with the move order.

Thanks, miles...! Nice explanation. 

I have a question for you. You wrote: "...can lead to some fairly open tactical types of positions for black..." 

Are all open positions tactical in nature, while closed positions being positional? Or is this an oversimplification? 

Oh, and isn't the Ruy Lopez more likely to lead to a positional battle, than a shap one, despite beginning with 1. e4 e5?

I'm not clever. Okay. 

Yes, if I was looking for sharp play, it was be a reasonable assumption. However, I'm not. I just asked a question regarding sharp play, and so, it's not a reasonable assumption. 

Yes, you are better (at chess) than me. 

No, you did not hurt my ego. 

 Good one MV

The thing about the Ruy is that it's a positional game that could turn into a tactical game at almost any time, a difficult mix in my opinion.  Open positions usually just are more tactical to start with because the pieces can get out and mix it up, but can lead to rapid simplification into dull endgames, for example the Scotch game tends to go that way for me.  Closed positions can be very tense, with a lot of pieces on the board behind those pawns which can erupt into tactics when the position opens up. Do you want the heavy action up front, or would you rather let it heat up a while before it breaks- a matter of taste. Some closed positions in Double KP are dull as wood for example the closed guico piano with d3 and Nc3. This is so common in amateur chess but is really a lame way to play it. So there is no hard and fast rule about 1. e4 being more tactical than  1d4. thanks for responding 

HessianW..., what's MV?