What to play against 1. d4

The answer to this is sort of complicated. I do play to achieve something in chess that is meaningful to me in the competitive sense. By that I mean winning the sort of events that are significant in the amateur chess players calendar such as a big national event like the world open and the bigger local events like the state championship. There are also some local events where I can play in the top section and take on some master level players, Most of the time though I won't be playing anyone rated above 1900.

*** On the other hand winning isn't the only thing that is important to me. The creative achievement is also important to me. i don't want to just win but do it with style. In Tal's book he says the he would rather play a game that ends in a fighting draw than win in a dry technical way. He also says he has allowed a lot of draws by trying to win with style. I don't know if I would go so far as being okay with risking a draw happening in a winning position but I kind of relate with what Tal was saying about creative achievement.

*

Something else I would like to do is become the kind of player who can play pretty much any opening. I had a little adventure in this already. I used to play in the 45+45 league on the FICS server where you play one game a week for 6 weeks. The last season I played there I literally prepared a different opening every week. Many of the openings I played I played for the very first time in a serious game. Optimissed mentioned that disaster can happen if you get confused when you try to do this. That happened to me a few times that season. The most memorable was when I was paired against this 2000 rated player from China....2000 as in online rating. I had prepared the Tal line of the Caro Kann. The game was going according to theory when I suddenly forgot theory at move 10 or so. Even after a 20 minute think I wasn't able to figure things out. I got the worse position and mostly lost because of that. However, we were to play again later in the season and I managed to beat him using the benko gambit. It was the first time I ever used the Benko in a serious game. Well...to be honest I had a losing position in that game too ,but the position was complicated and I was able to pull off a swindle. Oh and there was also a game against a player from Peru where I played 1. Nf3 for the first time. I didn't decide to play 1. Nf3 until the clocks started ticking. I just had this feeling that he was going to be super prepared for my normal 1. e4 stuff so I totally improvised. It worked I was up a knight and had a passed pawn. Then I suddenly blundered the pawn and the game soon ended in a draw. Playing that kind of way was exhilarating but takes a lot of energy.

*

Almost immediately after this tournament. I went off to washington DC for the Eastern Open.(december 2023) My best results there were in openings I prepared for. I played the sveshnikov for the first time and scored 2 wins with the sveshnikov. I also played the Benko 3 times and scored 50 percent with it.

Over the next year or so after the Eastern Open I barely studied openings at all. Pretty much all of my chess studying consisted of reading the articles in Chess Life. I did play in the North American Open in Las Vegas in December 2024. I did do some opening study to prepare for this event, but I didn't start my opening study until about 3 weeks before the event....even so the opening study had an effect.....the most notable was a win in the black side of the sicilian alapin, and a win with black in the closed sicilian. Something I learned from playing these big OTB events is that studying openings helps, so I kind of made it more of a focus recently,

Play whatever brings you joy.

As long as you aren't blundering in the opening, the defense you choose doesn't really matter anyway - it's a draw with best play, no matter which path up the mountain you choose.

The trick is to find the path that you enjoy hiking the most.

^ I actually like that philosophy, for the most part. Although I would modify it in one way, personally... I enjoy winning.

Hey MaetsNori ....have you seen my blog? your message here kind of gives me the impression that you might have. It could also be that you simply enjoy exploring paths up the mountain as much as I do. Here is one of my most popular posts. https://www.chess.com/blog/jamesstack/off-the-beaten-path

Fun fact: every opening loses if you play against an engine or a very strong player.

The KID, the Benko and the Grunfeld are all respectable, totally playable even at the grandmaster level.

Compadre_J's advice is as useful as always. (Utterly useless.)

I like MaetsNori philosophy as well.

BUT, the important thing being left out of his post is

- All Openings are not created equal.

- All Openings don’t Draw.

Some lines with perfect play lose or struggle to get the draw.

———————

I have played the KID for 20 years.

I have gone from rate 500 to 1900 and the KID was only line I used against 1.d4.

However, I’m trying to tell you there are lines in the KID which are not very good for Black.

—————————

We can say I’m just a Noob and perhaps I’m just playing the position wrong.

GrandMasters play the KID so that should make it playable right?

Well have you actually looked at those games?

A GM playing and losing with a KID doesn’t help the situation.

—————————

If I was losing and GM’s were winning or doing fine in the lines.

Then it would be a Skill Issue situation we’re upon I’m just not skillful enough to play the KID correctly.

BUT when GM’s lose as well?

At a certain point, It’s not a Skill issue.

It is an Opening Issue.

The KID is a fun line, but I don’t consider it a solid line.

This is why I switched to the Gruenfeld.

I still play the KID, but in serious games I try to play the Gruenfeld because it holds up better.

I prefer playing openings that are, according to Stockfish, playable but inferior but also have a trick and surprise element, and even if they don't fall for your tricks, you have a respectable position. That's why I enjoy playing openings such as the Vienna Game, the Alekhine's Defense, and the Budapest Gambit. Being aggressive, not a terrible position if your opponent knows the theory and is fun.

Here is 1st Sample line showing what I have been saying.

A Standard Position above.

David Bronstein recommends Black should play c6.

David Bronstein believed c6 is best move to deal with White set up.

Other Chess players have tried other moves.

- Nc6

- Nbd7

What move does Black play?

David Bronstein was 1 of the strongest KID players in chess history at least top 10.

He said c6 is the move,

BUT look at the Win rates!!!

White’s win rate is close to 40%.

Draw rates are close to 40%.

Black win rate is close to 20%.

Are we going to call White 2 vs. 1 Win rate vs. Black good for Black?

Keep in mind, Black has played other moves vs. the 3 I mentioned and those win rates for Black are even worse.

David Bronstein recommends c6.

The Position is identical except White pawn’s are further up the board giving White more space.

Thus, White has the advantage.

White has a Positional Advantage in a positional opening. Black doesn’t have counter play.

I stopped playing this position as Black because Black just gravels in this position.

A passive sad position which Black gave to White.

Same Position with Minor Change!

Look at this people.

1 Pawn Move difference people that’s all I did different!

I did d5 more like Gruenfeld vs. KID with d6.

The 1 Pawn move difference changes the win rates tons!

White win rate 21%

Draw rate 63%

Black win rate 16%

1 Pawn move changes White win rate from 2 vs. 1 to basically nothing, but a draw.

What position is easier to play as Black?

This is just 1 example showing you how the KID can struggle.

Is Black position refuted? No, David Bronstein played it. How do we play like David?

It’s not easy and even other Title players struggle in such positions.

Again look at the Data showing how poorly the line is doing as Black.

If you enjoy complications and messiness, you should probably play the king's indian. To me, the Benko feels a bit more technical than messy. After all, you're down a pawn and your compensation is "pressure on the queenside". The Modern Benoni is messier, but also requires more theoretical knowledge. In online blitz, i've had three of the exact same position occur at move 15. It's a line where black's down a pawn and three pairs of minor pieces get traded off, and somehow black is okay. But the King's Indian is relatively simpler in terms of required theoretical knowledge (They closed the position? Just push f5!) and you can always choose to play positionally if you feel like it (a5 Na6-c5 etc) which is how I liked to play it back when I played the KID.

@compadre_j c6 is pretty respectable against the fianchetto. But there's alternatives if you don't like it. I play c5 and Nc6, to induce d5.

The Dutch Defence is the best response to 1d4 if you are playing for the win. Made it to 2400 with it after trying everything else and only being able to barely reach 2300. Above the 2300 the classical systems become simply unplayable but the Dutch rules.

Sndeww post was very well done.

Sndeww showcased an alternative way to play.

————————

However, The example Sndeww is showing also helps reinforce what I am saying.

I am saying the King’s Fianchetto line is 1 line among several that is causing the KID troubles.

For the above reason, I try to transpose from a KID to more of a Gruenfeld type of position.

Sndeww is transposing from a KID to more of a Benoni type of position.

This means we both are needing to have Opening Knowledge of 2 different lines.

I need to know how to play the KID + I need to know how to play the Gruenfeld a little bit due to this “variation” white can play.

——————————

I love playing the KID I recommend it to people all the time, but I know it’s not completely solid.

This is why I am transposing.

The next set up I want to show you is the most challenging continuation against the KID.

The Position is known as the Bayonet Attack.

The most devastating opening known to man.

35% Win rate for White

47% Draw rate

18% Win rate for Black

What can we say about this position?

Many KID players play the Pawn Exchange because they think the Bayonet Attack is just to good for White.

I still love 7…Nc6, but this is what can happen if you play it.

Keep in mind, the lines I am showing are mainly positional lines.

White isn’t attacking the King in any of the lines I have shown. White is attacking space & weak squares.

Observe how the positional lines have high win rates for White.

A healthy score for black is if white is scoring around 54-57.

35 + (47/2) = 35 + 23 = 58 which is within reason. It doesn't score well enough to justify it being some sort of devastating retort to the KID.

You know.. I feel sort of inclined to play both. On the Benko this comes from wanting to read the books Andrew Martin suggested in his DVD:: The Benko Gambit by Jan Pinsky and the complete Benko Gambit by John Fedorowicz. Andrew Martin talked about these books with such enthusiasm that it makes me want to read them. Have you read these books? Are they fun books to read?

On the Kings Indian side there is the advantage that I have read several books on it already. These include the following:

The Main line Kings Indian by John Nunn+ Graham Burgess(1996)

The New Classical Kings Indian by John Nunn+ Graham Burgess(1997)

The Samisch Kings Indian by Joe Gallagher(1995)

Beating the anti Kings Indians by Joe Gallagher(1996)

The fianchetto Kings Indian by Colin McNabb(1996)

I have read the gallagher books and the fianchetto book cover to cover but only big chunks of the Nunn books,,,,they are kind of encyclopedic. It would be a big task to go through them entirely. Anyway do you think I could get away with simply going through these books again? Or will it be an issue that they are now almost 30 years old?

Probably not. As long as you check some critical looking lines with the computer to make sure there's nothing suspicious going on for one side. I never owned a book on the King's Indian, but I've played it pretty successfully.

That's not unusual.

I love playing the Nimzo-Indian with a ...d6 pawn structure. But there are some lines in my repertoire where I play a ...d5 pawn structure, instead (because trying to force a ...d6 structure, in those particular lines, can end up giving Black a more difficult position).

But this doesn't mean that I view the ...d6 NID as dubious. It just means I only play it against certain variations. Other times, I transpose to a ...d5 setup.

It's like the Dutch, in a way ... to play it well, it's best to know how and why to switch between the three main postures (Classical, Leningrad, and Stonewall). An inflexible Dutch player will stick to just one of these approaches and play it religiously. But a well-rounded player will have all three of these setups in their repertoire, and will switch between them as needed.

Knowing when and why to transpose to other variations (or to other defenses) isn't a bad thing - I'd say it's good, because it expands your knowledge base, and improves the flexibility of your play.

You could also just play 1...d5, which is not bad either. The Slav, QGD, and many other solid defenses arise after 1.d4 d5.

Yes, I agree.

I also like to stray off the beaten path, just a little - when possible. It's more fun to play lines that are less commonly known.

Although I'm still trying to find a more divergent approach against 1.e4. Currently, I'm very firmly on the beaten path, fumbling my way down the endless Najdorf theory rabbit-hole ...

Me personally, I play the Alekhines Defense against 1.e4. Its not exactly mainstream but very solid and difficult for White to keep their center. You should try it.