the Queens Gambit Accepted

my principle is to never accept the queens gambit. basically because you will most likely guaranteed lose a center pawn for a flank/wing pawn. that just seems like "stupid" to me, maybe a little harsh, but it just doesn't seem to make much sense to me aaaaand they get the center now, as well with e4. it's a double whammy

but playing it yourself as white is ofc one of the best openings for a reason, so i like it a lot

yes dxc4 does trade a center pawn for a wing pawn. but it is for a bishop pawn which is more valuable than a knight or rook pawn. getting the center and holding the center are two different things. that is the basis of all hypermodern play. from what I have studied so far, white is better to play 3. Nf3,... than 3.e4,... With e4 comes very complicated play and black has e5 or c5 to dislodge whites potential holding on the center.

another observation is that white must spend time recapturing blacks pawn. how black spends that time given is very important.

QGA means white only. For black it is just trash , honestly how do you even last past move 6 in the game as black without an already worse position ?

that's a good question. How does black last past move 6 in any opening without a worse position? I think the answer is the same here. by making moves that are appropriate to the position and following the theory of the opening. remember, equal is not worse, it's equal. once the intended positions of the opening are achieved, it is time for middlegame ideas, plans, strategies, and tactics. the opening has achieved its purpose. now the rest of the game follows.

The QGA is trash for black? That's news to me!

Let's see here, at various points it was a main weapon of *checks notes* Anand, Caruana, Dominguez, and even to some extent Kasparov against 1. d4, with players like Aronian and Nakamura playing it as secondary weapons, and those are just some of the biggest names...

I don't mean to offend anybody, but a lot of "the blind leading the blind" happens on this forum, and I see some of that in this thread. There's nothing wrong with being new to chess. We all have to start somewhere!

But I see two beginners who have posted in this discussion, one saying the QGA is "stupid" because of the existence of the move 3. e4 (which has been known to be fine for black for 40 years), and another declaring it to be "just trash" with no analysis given. My advice to the OP is to consider the evidence/supporting variations/citations given behind those claims (i.e. really none) and the credentials of the people making them (same). And then decide for yourself who you want to listen to

TLDR it's a good opening; I've played both sides of it (as well as both sides all other main lines of the Queen's Gambit) for many years now. It's not going anywhere anytime soon.

thank you for your response NM doorman. first, what does TDLR mean? I'm not up on text short hand. two, is there any way you could print the rest of your response. it cuts off in the phone app after TDLR. do you play it ? or obviously against it? I would also like a little more discussion of Qe2 by white in the e3 lines? I believe it is named the Furman variation? who was a second to Karpov i think.

"is there any way you could print the rest of your response" gave me a chuckle. If you have any *serious* questions I'd be interested in responding but I get the feeling this thread is already becoming a bit of a meme lol

Kings gambit is better

well so far I get the feeling that the QGA is not a popular defense in comparison to all the other defenses available to black against d4. Although, I have also not been given any real evidence that it is suspect in any way. so far, some of the pros for playing it is 1) it is relatively short on theory in comparison to other defenses. 2) it produces solid Although sometimes boring middlegames. and 3) because it is not the usual response it takes white out of the majority of his preparation.

The QGA is slightly unsound, but playable. I much prefer the QGD or one of the Slav defenses tho

come back when you’re sober

Who's the drunk one? One post earlier, you say QGA is unsound?

SMH!

That said, the King's Gambit is TRASH! If I were still played 1...e5, I'd be more than happy to face the King's Gambit. All these stupid lines that people think invoke FEAR into Black are just insane. Lines like the King's Gambit, Smith-Moron Gambit, Milner-Barry Gambit, Exchange French, etc, are amongst the easiest to defend!

The QGA is more unsound than the QGD, that’s a fact and quite well-known throughout the community. Perhaps compared to some weird gambit or unorthodox lines, not so much.

I'm not sure that the QGA is "more" unsound than the QGD. what I see is that there are multiple ways to decline the gambit but only one way to accept it. which seems to follow the logic of all gambits. It really isn't a gambit if white spends the time to recover the pawn. think of it as an "extended" exchange. it just leads to a different game structure.

I smell engine slavery here. Some people are far too gone deciding if something is unsound or not just because it is 5 centipawns worse or something.

“some people” as in me

Not just you. Puffer is the champion of that

The QGA and QGD are equally sound. As in, both completely sound, clearly lead to draws with best play, and played frequently at super-GM level. QGD is a more classical opening that adheres a bit more strongly to the principles we’re taught as kids, so it’s a bit more popular at most levels. Not a question of “soundness.”

Re “that’s a fact and quite well-known throughout the community.” I mean idk maybe that dude is in a different community from me. Most of the players in my community have four-digit ratings 🤷