Strong tactical response to d4?

While the Tarrasch is a very dynamic response to 1.d4/1.c4/1.Nf3, it does have a respectable body of theory. But mostly the Tarrasch is a matter of proper positional understanding: how to utilize OTB the dynamic elements of the IQP that occurs in most mainlines.

But it's main advantage is that it can be combined with other QGD lines, say Lasker (ultra-solid), or Tartakower (also very solid, and very rich strategically) to form an ambitious, yet very safe repertoire based on QGD.

Ambitious? Certainly yes. Sharp? Sort-of. Sound? Yes, if you do understand what you are playing, and do not just memorize book moves. True, white may draw you in very drawish lines if it is the only opening you play against 1.d4, but you don't have to...

Personally I have played the Tarrasch in the past, with rather dissapointing results- but mostly this was not due to an openings fault, but due to my will to overpress.

If, by all means, you do need a sharp game, try the Englund. The only problem with it I'm aware of is that it drops a juicy central pawn for nothing, and against decent opposition you should be pleased if you pick 1.5 to 2 points out of ten games.

Yes, the main issue is that in the main line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf6 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.O-O O-O, 9.dxc5 leads to positions where you need to significantly outclass your opponent to win as black; if white plays passively often the "punishment" is merely that black manages to exchange to isolated pawn with a just marginally better or even dead equal position. I must say that at my level (1875 fide) i never had particular problems over the board in generating winning chances, but i sometimes felt the drawishness of the line when playing online.

9.Bg5 c4 is less of a problem in terms of creating winning chances unless your opponent is really booked to death (which may happen to pfen i guess, but certainly not in amateur practice); as soon as white plays a slightly passive move black queenside majority can set in motion, and black has every hope of playing for a win.

Yeah, I was going to play the Tarrasch, and I bought a Grandmaster Repertoire book on it, but I realised it is so rare for Black to get a typical IQP position (which is what I wanted) that is really wasn't worth learning all the theory to it (which was also a lot more than I thought). I have taken a look at the Englund but it seems Black has to learn quite some theory there and can't even be assured of a good game..

The Budapest Gambit looks a lot better than the Englund gambit, and I think I would feel comfortable in those positions, where you rook lift and get a cheap attack against the king (I play the Colle-Zukertort). Do you have to learn much theory for the Budapest?

I have also looked into the 3...dxc4 line of the Slav, which I have found out is called the Geller Gambit. Is this any good? I think because I have some experience playing this in blitz, it maybe better for me than the Budapest. I really like Black's queenside pawn majority and in many lines he just remains a pawn up. However the lines where white plays a4 before Black plays b5 look annoying. Any opinions on this line?

I think the best bets for lo theory tactical responses would be:

Chigorin
Albin counter
Budapest

or a blumenfeld QGD repertoire like this:

1.d4 nf6 2.c4 e6 and now 3.Nc3 d5/3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 b5

Try the Black Knights Tango. It is a Nice and active opening without much theory, this is the mainline: 1. d4 Nf6 2. C4 Nc6! 3. Nf3 e6 4. Nc3 Bb4 and Black plays Bxc3 d6 O-O e5 Ne7 Ng6 Nh5 Nhf5 and f5 fx

I will take another look at the Tarrasch then, but if the Grandmaster Repertoire book is anything to go by, it is too theoretical for my liking..

It's a GM repertoire book: it's supposed to show you how to equalize if your opponent is a GM who prepared a !! computer novelty on move 25, and to cover every possible rare sideline. The result it's bound to be theoretically heavy regardless of the opening :P

In practice the opening is not really theoretical in my experience, as long as you know where to put your pieces in a IQP position the play is very thematic. Very rarely theory consists in strange looking moves you would never find over the board, apart for the Bg5 c4 and 6.dxc5 lines. In the first one you may need to find only moves, but just if your opponent plays very aggressively ; the second is tricky but fortunately impopular for now since it was considered rubbish before the book came out, and most white players have not yet heard of it. There are also a couple of tricky lines here and there (well, it's the same for every opening), but in the vast majority of the other lines you can play by heart witout knowing any theory if you have a feel for IQP positions. Of course i'm talking about club level play, if you're an IM who faces opponents with great knowledge and technique on a daily basis then yes, you probably have to remember that in line xyz you have to play Bg4 before Re8, white in line abc it's the opposite otherwise you're slightly worse, but at our lever it's not really a vital difference

That's very interesting, and if I had more time I think I would try learning the Tarrasch. But, unfortunately, the tournament is tommorow ;) I think I might just play the stonewall, and accept the passive position the comes after g3. However I might play the QGA, which is quite solid and although maybe not quite as tactical as I would like, should be okay, as I hav studied and done the analysis on it before. It depends how many games I play with it tonight...

You should definitely not try a new opening tomorrow :P It takes at least a month (to me at least) to get a good feeling for a new variation.

Yea, on second thoughts the QGA is a bad choice.. I think I will just play the Stonewall and hope that white does not play g3... Chances are my opponents won't even play d4. I think I will learn the Tarrasch though, you've given such good reasons for me to play it, and I want to give it a go!! Thanks for all the advice from everyone :)

The slightly unusual lines that are not complete garbage and with the lowest draw % in my database are: 

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c5 4.d5 b5

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.d5 exd5 5.cxd5 Bd6

I wouldn't really reccommend playing this way though...

Snake Benoni and the Blumenfeld? That's very interesting, because in the past I have played both of those variations ;) Not sure I understood them very well though, back when I was a weaker chess player than I am now.. but might take another look at them :)

Darn my list of openings I want to try against d4 is get longer and longer... now its at Tarrasch, Budapest, Blumenfeld, Snake Benoni ;)

Marcus, in your original post, you have white making an inaccuracy in move four. If black plays the Slav, then any white d4 player worth their salt should know that they need to play 4. a4 right away to prevent your line, otherwise it's not guaranteed that they are getting the extra pawn back.

Watch out for your rook on a8 if you're going to desparately try to hold onto that extra pawn! I have taken out many a patzer who tried to hold on to extra material instead of developing the knight to give the rook room to run.

You could also try the Dutch Defence. It's imbalanced and has black immediately looking for a counter attack, it looks like the d4 version of the sicilian. I don't know about theory, but it's likely your opponent is going to know nothing about it. I've always liked the Dutch Stonewall

Ha....Ha.... that's the opening I was trying to avoid... I have learnt the stoewall but I find Black's position very passive after white plays g3

Oops, I didn't see that part in your OP XD

Yeah, it is a little defensive, but I guess it suits me well. There are other very different lines in the Dutch that you might like more. Try not to close up the center with your pawns, perhaps?

The Stonewall is the best option against the g3 lines though. Therefore I can't really avoid it.

Ah. It's been a while since I used or studied the Dutch