Sharpest reply to 1. d4?

 Nothing just keep going on with what you are doing.

miles, as far as I understand, closed positions are positions with a center filled with pawns, and open positions are positions without "pawn clutter" in the center. Isn't that correct? 

Anyway, I tend to like positions with the pieces in front of my pawns, not behind them. Is there any word for this? Positions with pieces between the White and Black  pawns, and positions with the pieces behind their pawns? 

And, while 1. e4 and 1. d4 might be equally likely to turn into sharp positions, then some replies to 1. e4 and 1. d4, might be more likely to turn sharp than others, right? 

Isn't it also correct that 1. f4, 1. Nc3 and 1. b4 tends to turn sharp more often than 1. e4 and 1. d4? 

Thank you.

 We will see what you post.

HessianW..., what am I doing? And why not tell me what MV means?

 I don't have too. You know.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_swaxOidGU

Personally, I don't think anything is sharper than certain double KP games such as the max lange attack, the moller variation of the guico, the danish gambit, the two knights, the kings gambit, and many other quick developing usually gambit type lines.  That's what sharp means to me. The kind of lines where you better have a good memory or you could end up on the wrong end of the tactics very quickly. I don't think of 1.f4, 1.Nc3, 1.b4 as being sharp in that sense, although they can build up to amazing complications I am sure. Not sharp, though. This is a little off topic, but I have a signed copy of a book called "In the Dark" by the blindfold chess phenomenon George Koltanowski, who was also a superb tournament player back in the day. He would go down the line in a blindfold simul and alternate the Max Lange attack with the Colle system, probably to keep the games different in his memory, and i'm telling you, that guy was awesome at beating club players by the dozens.  Great advocate of the Max Lange attack, which is extremely tactical and fun to play , but also could play positional chess with some of the best such as Alekhine, Tartakower, Nimzovich, etc.

Interesting! So what you are saying, is that sharp positions are positions with lots of "tricks and traps" one needs to know about, not to become a victim of one? And sharp isn't the same as complicated, you say. That's a good thing to know for me, since I - being new to this game - kind of saw "sharp", "tactical", "complicated", and to some extend "open" positions as being sort of the same.

 Any clue yet Jethro?

well, sharp is complicated in an immediate tactical gunslinging kind of way but obviously those closed positions from the ruy lopez, semi-slav, king's indian, benko gambit etc. have their own type of complexity, which is sometimes called "dynamic" where there is a build up of tension on the board.It's all a matter of semantics, the play is the thing.  Play over some master games from the ancient past such as Morphy, Andersen, Marshall and contrast them with more modern games from  some of the Russian GMs such as Bronstein, Botvinik, Petrosian and you can see the games are all complex, but in different ways.  The open  tactical games are good to learn before you do the other stuff, or you will never be that good at tactics, in my opinion.  Also ignore the snarky comments!

Sounds like good advice, about the master games, as well as about the comments. Thanks, miles.... 

The King's Indian Defense can be pretty sharp. In the main lines, black launches his kingside pawns and goes for the kill, while white attacks on the queenside and tries to undermine black's center.

The King's Indian Defense is a sharp opening? Really?

Yes, it's a fighting defence. Look at this famous game to get a feel for it

hicetnunc, do you think the line Short used to beat Kasparov (the one you mentioned) is sharp? 

Nice (old) game. 

RoseQ..., what's your problem? Seriously. What drives you to write something like that? What do you gain? What do you give? 

Yes, having only studied chess for 2 months, I didn't know the King Indian Defense was a sharp opening. So I asked, and nice chess.com members replied - which is great!  

Allow me to sugges you try to think about what you write in these otherwise wonderful forums, before you click "Submit your comment". It would be better for all, including yourself. 

CigoL you really make the same sounds as some one I know.

HessianW..., read post #40. It applies to you as well. I suggest you give something to this wonderful chess community, or don't post at all.

 As far as the Chess community I susggest 1. c4, as far you?

I would say after 1. d4 then i usually play king's indian

A common compensation for double edged (sharp) position is the lower level of theoretical solidity.

At sub 2000 level, if people want a sharp game they will go with 1...Nf6 with a plan to go to the KID. But if White brings the game to the better variation for White, Black tends to abort the KID and switch to a more solid defense such as the Gruendfeld (by doing an early ...d5). At much lower level, it is okay going with KID even if the variation is not favoured.

At higher level, the KID is considered refuted. Gruendfeld is also not favoured as it is drawish (tedious to play but drawish, who likes that?). So for those who look for sharp position they will go with 1...d5 because the strongest and most favoured continuation after 1.d4 d5 is 2.c4, so Black can bring the game into the Semi Slav