I don't mean this in a nasty way, but whatever the reason for you thinking that your true rating should be around 1500 USCF, it's wrong. You're not 1500.
I don't know anything about any of those openings. I recommend the either the QGD or the QGA as I believe that they will help to teach you the principle of chess the fastest. That's my advice, obviously the decision is yours. I guarantee you though, you're not 1500.
I don't mean this in a nasty way, but whatever the reason for you thinking that your true rating should be around 1500 USCF, it's wrong. You're not 1500.
I don't know anything about any of those openings. I recommend the either the QGD or the QGA as I believe that they will help to teach you the principle of chess the fastest. That's my advice, obviously the decision is yours. I guarantee you though, you're not 1500.
Here's a recent game where I drew a 1500 rated opponent. I played as Black.
Try the Nimzo-Indian defense. It's one of the most popular and maybe the strongest counter to d4. I think the Dutch defense is kind of slow for black... I would avoid that one since you like tactical play.
I really recommend the Nimzo-Indian and Queen's Indian if your opponent goes nf3.
I don't mean this in a nasty way, but whatever the reason for you thinking that your true rating should be around 1500 USCF, it's wrong. You're not 1500.
I don't know anything about any of those openings. I recommend the either the QGD or the QGA as I believe that they will help to teach you the principle of chess the fastest. That's my advice, obviously the decision is yours. I guarantee you though, you're not 1500.
Here's a recent game where I drew a 1500 rated opponent. I played as Black.
Just becuse you drew a 1500 rated person as black, doesn't mean you are rated 1500.
In your latest tournament, you drew a 600, lost to a 200 and won against a 1000 that played terribly.
Here's a recent game where I drew a 1500 rated opponent. I played as Black.
That's the best you can give? A single badly played game in which you drew a 1500 player? The funniest is probably 15...d5 16.Nb2 (and you didn't even comment on it). Your analysis tells an even sadder story. You don't even understand your own moves, nevermind your opponents' which you repeatedly incorrectly comment on.
Look, you're nowhere near 1500 and your reason for thinking that you are makes about as much sense as your analysis of that game. A woman once told me I was a 10, therefore that's what I now adamantly believe to be true regardless of all other information that I posses, just because I want it to be... Ridiculous.
In your latest tournament, you lost to a 200
You can be rated 200? How? I don't see how that's possible. Did the OP lose to somebody with Down's syndrome who loses every game on time because they can't find legal moves fast enough?
Some times you lose to 'crap' players. Some times you win against 'strong' players. It's all a matter of where you are on the rating ladder. Even though you get a win against a stronger player, does not mean you are at that strenght. Visa versa.
In your latest tournament, you lost to a 200
You can be rated 200? How? I don't see how that's possible. Did the OP lose to somebody with Down's syndrome who loses every game on time because they can't find legal moves fast enough?
No, the 200 guy just started playing chess not too long ago so his rating goes up and down really fast.
I guess that almost makes sense...
In your latest tournament, you drew a 600, lost to a 200 and won against a 1000 that played terribly.
I blundered horribly against the 200 rated player (whose rating is provisional and she also has been playing some much stronger competition which is why her rating is so low) so she won. I made an error in the endgame after I simplified with the 600 rated opponent (he is a fairly new USCF member with an inaccurate rating as well). The 1000 rated opponent should have been rated much lower. I won that game in a miniature while using hardly any time on my clock.
Go Nimzo!
Nothing that you're saying makes sense. She was under rated because she had been playing some much stronger competition? What? Just... I have no words...
You know that the 1500 made blunders against you in the game above, right? Do we therefore write that win off like you just wrote the losses of for that exact same reason? By your logic you've never played a game of chess. Or, (since you're going to incorrectly claim that I'm wrong about that) never played a game of chess from which your rating can be even partially derived.
Nothing that you're saying makes sense. She was under rated because she had been playing some much stronger competition? What? Just... I have no words...
You know that the 1500 made blunders against you in the game above, right? Do we therefore write that win off like you just wrote the losses of for that exact same reason? By your logic you've never played a game of chess. Or, (since you're going to incorrectly claim that I'm wrong about that) never played a game of chess from which your rating can be even partially derived.
I.e. many of the opponents were 1700+ USCF rating in the tournaments I played in recently, so all the provisional ratings should be taken with a grain of salt.
Provisional rating? I don't care about that one game. What posts have you been reading? If you want to fool yourself into thinking that you're ~700 points underrated then go right ahead. I'm clearly not capable of getting reason through to you.
Again, I recommend the QGA and the QGD. Pick one of those classical approaches so that you can improve and learn the game of chess. If you think you're 1500 or you're looking at a database and being put off by statistics then I can't help you. Nobody really can.
Nothing that you're saying makes sense. She was under rated because she had been playing some much stronger competition? What? Just... I have no words...
You know that the 1500 made blunders against you in the game above, right? Do we therefore write that win off like you just wrote the losses of for that exact same reason? By your logic you've never played a game of chess. Or, (since you're going to incorrectly claim that I'm wrong about that) never played a game of chess from which your rating can be even partially derived.
According to an analysis of the game by lichess, I made 4 inaccuracies and 1 mistake, but 0 blunders. My opponent made 1 inaccuracy and 3 mistakes. I believe this is a reasonable analysis tool (plenty of other people have used it in the past). I do not claim that the figure I stated was by any means wholly accurate. It is just an educated guess to give you a ballpark idea of where I'm at (meaning anywhere from ~1300 - 1600 USCF strength) so that you can give me general advice (advice to a 1000 rated player would be quite different from advice to an 1800 player regarding openings). I still do not understand why you all are trying to start an off-topic debate when all I'm asking for is advice, not an argument.
(advice to a 1000 rated player would be quite different from advice to an 1800 player regarding openings). I still do not understand why you all are trying to start an off-topic debate when all I'm asking for is advice, not an argument.
Explaining how something is on topic is not typically what one does immediately before complaining that it shoildn't be brought up because it's off topic!
I'm getting wound up... I'm getting really wound up...
Sing me a soothing song, COP, before I take this out on dpnorman in another thread (although I fully believe he deserves it) and risk being muted.
Back to the original topic: At your level, I agree that the queen's gambit declined is a good way to go. The Grunfeld is the soundest of the three options you listed, but it's tricky to learn. The Budapest has some surprise value but it's really not that good, and you want your regular repertoire to at least be sound. The Dutch is playable at the highest levels, but it's probably not quite as good as simply playing 1... d5, and it's trickier for a beginner to play.
Hello,
I have been trying to find an opening for Black to use against 1. d4, and so far I have narrowed down my potential options (based on soundness and how much I like the openings) to the Grunfeld Defense and the Budapest Gambit (with Dutch Defense being an OK alternative). I am approximately 1500 USCF strength (this is based on tournament results against strong players, since my rating is currently way deflated) in long OTB time controls. I play King's Gambit as White and Sicilian Dragon as Black against 1. e4 (although I plan on switching to Sicilian Najdorf eventually). As you can see from my choice of openings I like very tactical play. What are your recommendations (advice on studying openings in general are also appreciated)?