Forums

What’s the pros and cons of using the Indian Defense move order for the queens gambit declined.

Sort:
Vulpix-Fan

What are the pros and cons to using the Indian Defense move order for the QGD? Like 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5

ibrust

In general the biggest con of 1. Nf6, as far as sidelines go, is probably you have to face the Trompowsky instead of the Levitsky attack. Biggest pro for a below-master player who's looking for just one solid line... is probably that there are some stronger c5/Qb6 lines against the London, even one leading to a forced draw.

As for the range of main defenses they lead into (flexibility is one factor for consideration) - the slav / QGA are better reached via 1. d5, and obviously the KID / Grunfeld / benko / nimzo indian / QID are only reachable via Nf6. The slav / QGA are more fighting openings, the KID / Grunfeld / Nimzo indian / QID are more positional and theoretical.

Just for how they deal with sidelines I'd probably lean toward playing Nf6 over d5 simply because I find the london very boring, and if I can spice that up or shut it down... I'm willing to play the Trompowsky to achieve that. And there are some cool lines against the Trompowsky, I like the c5/Qb6 variations there too.

For a QGD player it's also better to play Nf6 - this has the additional benefit of pressuring your opponent to play the anti-nimzo setup, which leads to a sub-optimal QGD exchange.

ThrillerFan

As mentioned already, con would be the Trompowsky. Another is the Catalan can be played without an early Nf3. 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 whereas 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 allows 3...f5, so typically the Catalan players will play 3.Nf3 Nf6 and only then 4.g3. 3.Nf3 f5?? Is bad because of 4.Nc3 Nf6 5.Bf4! followed by 6.e3 and 7.Bd3 with the ideal setup against the Stonewall. That is why Stonewall players must wait for g3.

One pro is some hate the Nimzo enough that they will play 3.Nf3 if they are not Catalan players. This avoids exchange lines with Nge2. Many nimzo players play the QGD instead of QID or BID against 3.Nf3 and they will go Nimzo against 3.Nc3.

MisterOakwood

I agree with the prev comments but there is one more thing I would like to add. One important feat of the Nf6 move order is that you can play a queens gambit declined and fully rely on the semi tarrasch defence. If white wants to play the exchange QGD without allowing the semi tarrasch, he can commit to an early Nf3 and this way allow the semi-tarrasch like this:

I understand that the early Nf3 in the exchange is slightly inferior, but this is only one of whites many move order tricks in the QGD. By playing the Nf6 move order, we can enter the QGD on blacks terms:
The difference is not so much that one move order is objectively better than the other. It is more so that black is choosing which opening he wants to play against what setup by experimenting with move order tricks. 
 
The same could be said for the opposite - if you enjoy playing the QGD against 3.Nf3 but not 3.Nc3 you can also choose to transpose into the QGD only against 3.Nf3 and play the Nimzo against 3.Nc3. 
 
In conclusion, openings are packets where we must know every variation that our opponent can throw at us. We can experiment with different move orders to exchange some of our opponents possible weapons against some other potential openings that we enjoy playing against. 
ibrust

I'm really not following the logic in your post there. The move 3 setup where you have d5/e6/Nf6 with either Nf3 or Nc3 - that's reached from both the indian and the queens pawn line. It's the move 1 / 2 sidelines that will differ between Nf6 vs. d5 for a QGD player. Nf3 is played slightly more often against 1... Nf6, that's true, but that's just a slight probability difference due to psychological pressure, there's no material difference.

MisterOakwood
ibrust skrev:

I'm really not following the logic in your post there. The move 3 setup where you have d5/e6/Nf6 with either Nf3 or Nc3 - that's reached from both the indian and the queens pawn line. It's the move 1 / 2 sidelines that will differ between Nf6 vs. d5 for a QGD player. Nf3 is played slightly more often against 1... Nf6, that's true, but that's just a slight probability difference due to psychological pressure, there's no material difference.

What I am saying is that by playing the Nf6 move order, black can choose to enter the QGD depending on what white does. If he for example do not like to play against the early Nf3 QGD for any reason, he does not have to enter a QGD. If you enjoy playing ALL QGD lines with black, well then there really is no reason to play Nf6 as it allows more sidelines like trompowsky as you mentioned. If you like playing against the Nf3 QGD and not the Nc3 QGD, then go for the Nf6 move order instead, where you dont need to transpose into a QGD against Nc3.

Mazetoskylo

Practically the only serious reason is to avoid the exchange variation of the QGD by throwing in the Nimzoindian. If you feel comfortable in the exchange variation, then go 1...d5.

Mazetoskylo
ThrillerFan wrote:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 allows 3...f5, so typically the Catalan players will play 3.Nf3 Nf6 and only then 4.g3.

The most important drawback of 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.g3 is 3...dxc4 followed by ...c5, ...Nc6 etc. The omission of the move Nf6 allows Black to equalize quite easily.

ibrust
MisterOakwood wrote:
ibrust skrev:

I'm really not following the logic in your post there. The move 3 setup where you have d5/e6/Nf6 with either Nf3 or Nc3 - that's reached from both the indian and the queens pawn line. It's the move 1 / 2 sidelines that will differ between Nf6 vs. d5 for a QGD player. Nf3 is played slightly more often against 1... Nf6, that's true, but that's just a slight probability difference due to psychological pressure, there's no material difference.

What I am saying is that by playing the Nf6 move order, black can choose to enter the QGD depending on what white does. If he for example do not like to play against the early Nf3 QGD for any reason, he does not have to enter a QGD. If you enjoy playing ALL QGD lines with black, well then there really is no reason to play Nf6 as it allows more sidelines like trompowsky as you mentioned. If you like playing against the Nf3 QGD and not the Nc3 QGD, then go for the Nf6 move order instead, where you dont need to transpose into a QGD against Nc3.

Okay... but that's also true for 1... d5, you could play a triangle slav or QGA or something else. I'm still not really following the logic. What do you suggest black play against Nc3 after 1... Nf6 to avoid the QGD?

APainterPaints

Some players who like the Semi-Tarrasch prefer to play 1...Nf6 and play the Nimzo against 3...Nc3 and go for ...d5 if White plays 3.Nf3. This helps to avoid Semi-Tarrasch lines with 7.Rb1 and 7.a3 which score well for White.

ibrust

A semi-tarrasch vs. Nf3 repertoire should just play the tarrasch against Nc3 though, forget about the nimzo or the QGD move order. The tarrasch / semi-tarrasch transpose in a few places. But for a mainline QGD player... the main real use of semi-tarrasch is in circumventing the Nc3 exchange. If you're a nimzo player and looking for a line to compliment the nimzo with then semi-tarrasch vs. Nf3 makes sense, but playing the nimzo is the primary motive.

MisterOakwood
ibrust skrev:
MisterOakwood wrote:
ibrust skrev:

I'm really not following the logic in your post there. The move 3 setup where you have d5/e6/Nf6 with either Nf3 or Nc3 - that's reached from both the indian and the queens pawn line. It's the move 1 / 2 sidelines that will differ between Nf6 vs. d5 for a QGD player. Nf3 is played slightly more often against 1... Nf6, that's true, but that's just a slight probability difference due to psychological pressure, there's no material difference.

What I am saying is that by playing the Nf6 move order, black can choose to enter the QGD depending on what white does. If he for example do not like to play against the early Nf3 QGD for any reason, he does not have to enter a QGD. If you enjoy playing ALL QGD lines with black, well then there really is no reason to play Nf6 as it allows more sidelines like trompowsky as you mentioned. If you like playing against the Nf3 QGD and not the Nc3 QGD, then go for the Nf6 move order instead, where you dont need to transpose into a QGD against Nc3.

Okay... but that's also true for 1... d5, you could play a triangle slav or QGA or something else. I'm still not really following the logic. What do you suggest black play against Nc3 after 1... Nf6 to avoid the QGD?

As I said, if you want to avoid the Nc3 QGD while allowing the Nf3 QGD you only need to play 3...d5 against 3.Nf3 and not against 3.Nc3. Against 3.Nc3 black could play anything - the nimzo, benoni etc.

ibrust

Uhhhhh.... but you could also play 1 d5 > 2 e6 and then 3 Nf6 against 3. Nc3, or otherwise play a semi-slav or triangle slav or pseudo-tarrasch or whatever else, you're not saying anything that meaningfully distinguishes between 1. d5 vs. 1. Nf6, that's my point. And if you want to play a semi-tarrasch that badly... I can't imagine why you would avoid it vs. 3. Nf3 and prefer it vs. 3. Nc3 considering the mainline semi-tarrasch is reachable after 3. Nf3. Unless you're talking about a tournament setting where someone knows you're a semi-tarrasch player and they're a QGD exchange player, and you think they're targeting you with this subpar Nf3 exchange line, or something...

MisterOakwood
ibrust skrev:

Uhhhhh.... but you could also play 1 d5 > 2 e6 and then 3 Nf6 against 3. Nc3, or otherwise play a semi-slav or triangle slav or pseudo-tarrasch or whatever else, you're not saying anything that meaningfully distinguishes between 1. d5 vs. 1. Nf6, that's my point. And if you want to play a semi-tarrasch that badly... I can't imagine why you would avoid it vs. 3. Nf3 and prefer it vs. 3. Nc3 considering the mainline semi-tarrasch is reachable after 3. Nf3. Unless you're talking about a tournament setting where someone knows you're a semi-tarrasch player and they're a QGD exchange player, and you think they're targeting you with this subpar Nf3 exchange line, or something...

Im not saying that you cannot play anything else against either the Nf3 or Nc3 QGD from 1...d5.

I am not saying that you must play into QGD against either Nc3 or Nf3.

What I have been saying this whole time is that the Nf6 move order will allow other openings than the d5 move order. You are caught up on wether or not you should transpose into a Nf3 QGD or a Nc3 QGD and I am saying that that is for the black player to decide. If you dont like to play against the Nc3 QGD you can also play the triangle slav against it like you mentioned from the d5 move order. But if you dont like any of the options that d5 have to offer against Nc3 you should try the Nf6 move order so that you dont have to transpose into a d4 d5 opening against it. You can play the nimzo against Nc3 for example.

Move order tricks are really just ways to get a different set of possible openings in a given game. It may confuse your opponent, and they may end up transpositioning into an opening that they do not usually play.

ibrust

You said: "One important feat of the Nf6 move order is that you can play a queens gambit declined and fully rely on the semi tarrasch defence. If white wants to play the exchange QGD without allowing the semi tarrasch, he can commit to an early Nf3". Which a) isn't a unique feature of the Nf6 move order as you just established, since the same can be done with d5 just playing other lines against Nf3 such as the triangle or semi-slav or whatever else, b) doesn't even really make sense since you can reach the full-blown semi-tarrasch after Nf3, and the sub-optimal exchange is a rare line not worth upending your repertoire to avoid, it's the Nc3 exchange that's worth avoiding not the Nf3 exchange. I mean if you really want to play a semi-tarrasch then just play the semi-tarrasch after Nf3, that would make more sense...

MisterOakwood
ibrust skrev:

You said: "One important feat of the Nf6 move order is that you can play a queens gambit declined and fully rely on the semi tarrasch defence. If white wants to play the exchange QGD without allowing the semi tarrasch, he can commit to an early Nf3". Which a) isn't a unique feature of the Nf6 move order as you just established, since the same can be done with d5 just playing other lines against Nf3 such as the triangle or semi-slav or whatever else, b) doesn't even really make sense since you can reach the full-blown semi-tarrasch after Nf3, and the sub-optimal exchange is a rare line not worth upending your repertoire to avoid, it's the Nc3 exchange that's worth avoiding not the Nf3 exchange. I mean if you really want to play a semi-tarrasch then just play the semi-tarrasch after Nf3, that would make more sense...

I am not saying that there is a specific line where black has to transpose into the QGD, its completely up to himself. The tarrasch line was purely an example on how one could ONLY play the mainlines in the semi-tarrasch while avoiding the sidelines, and you are once again claiming that this is suboptimal which I also stated in the same response as you quoted.

a) Yes it is a unique feature of the Nf6 move order in the case when he does not want to play any d5 opening against Nc3 lines. Say you want to play the nimzo against Nc3? How on earth can you do this by starting with 1...d5? This is what I have been saying the whole time, its not about being able to play a different depending on what your opponent does, it is rather about what choices of those different openings are. With d5 you get the option of the slav as we both mentioned, and with Nf6 they are the nimzo, benoni and queens indian for example. If anybody want BOTH QGD AND the nimzo in their repertoire, they start with Nf6. If you want the QGD AND the slav, they start with d5. Its simply about the selection pool of openings for black. This is not hard to understand.

b) This post was never meant to be about either the semi-tarrasch or the exchange variation specifically. I mentioned these openings to discuss the principle about adding different openings to your repertoire that usually start with different move orders. For example: The QGD and the nimzo. I did not mean this as everybody should fear the suboptimal exchange variation, and change their repertoires accordingly. This is not hard to understand.

In conclusion, my post was purely an example on how different move orders affect the pool of opening choices you can add to your repertoire. You keep mentioning specific openings and that they are not objectively good, but this is not the point I am trying to make.

ibrust

"Yes it is a unique feature of the Nf6 move order in the case when he does not want to play any d5 opening against Nc3 lines. Say you want to play the nimzo against Nc3? How on earth can you do this by starting with 1...d5? This is what I have been saying the whole time,"

This statement can be generalized to say it's a noteworthy feature of any given move X that, for players who don't want to play move Y, they can play the move X instead. It's like saying... well it's a unique feature of turning left that, for those who don't want to turn right, they can go left. How can a person who has turned left turn right? That is my entire brilliant point I have been explaining this entire time! It's like... uhhmm.... okay, sure.

It is a unique and special feature of the move 1. e4 that it isn't the move 1. d4, and therefor for players who don't want to play 1. d4... they can play 1. e4.

MisterOakwood
ibrust skrev:

"Yes it is a unique feature of the Nf6 move order in the case when he does not want to play any d5 opening against Nc3 lines. Say you want to play the nimzo against Nc3? How on earth can you do this by starting with 1...d5? This is what I have been saying the whole time,"

This statement can be generalized to say it's a noteworthy feature of any given move X that, for players who don't want to play move Y, they can play the move X instead. It's like saying... well it's a unique feature of turning left that, for those who don't want to turn right, they can go left. How can a person who has turned left turn right? That is my entire brilliant point I have been explaining this entire time! It's like... uhhmm.... okay, sure.

It is a unique and special feature of the move 1. e4 that it isn't the move 1. d4, and therefor for players who don't want to play 1. d4... they can play 1. e4.

You are once again talking like both options excludes the other, while it is only true for one of them. The Nf6 move order is flexible in a sense that it allows for both openings that usually start with 1...d5 and openings that usually start with Nf6. If you start with 1...d5 you exclude pretty much all openings that usually start with 1...Nf6.

Your analogy is not accurate since it excludes possible transpositions between the first moves. But in reality, the first moves branch out into more options. And from one of the choices (1...Nf6) you have the option of transposing into the second choice. Which is not the case for the second choice - You can transpose from 1...Nf6 into 1...d5 openings but not the other way around.

I feel like this should not be hard to understand, and I cannot help to think that you dont want to understand at this point. Every answer you have given have been completely neglecting and/or misunderstanding what I have written while anybody rated 800+ should probably understand what I am talking about. I know you are a strong player, and I know you understand what I am saying at this point.

DrSpudnik
Vulpix-Fan wrote:

What are the pros and cons to using the Indian Defense move order for the QGD? Like 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 d5

I start with 1...e6, then Nf6 and see what they're up to. When they play all these weird anti-Nimzo-Indian lines, they usually end up in some kind of Queen's Indian setup on my side.

ibrust
MisterOakwood wrote:
 

You are once again talking like both options excludes the other, while it is only true for one of them. The Nf6 move order is flexible in a sense that it allows for both openings that usually start with 1...d5 and openings that usually start with Nf6. If you start with 1...d5 you exclude pretty much all openings that usually start with 1...Nf6.

No, your claims have gone through like 4 different iterations of themselves at this point. Unfortunately for you, this new point is actually just blatantly false witihin the context of this conversation, the QGD and avoiding Nc3 - If black is trying to avoid the QGD on move 3 after Nc3 the move 1... d5 has far more options than 1... Nf6, *and* there is no overlap between the two moves.

The move 1... d5 on move 3 here can play: Tarrasch, Charousek, Triangle Slav, Semi-Slav, Stonewall Dutch

The only one of these moves reachable via 1... Nf6 is the Semi-Slav and that's not a QGD move order so not even relevant to our conversation.

The move 1... Nf6 can play on move 3 after Nc3: Nimzo Indian, Benoni

Now, you've been discussing the QGD and avoiding Nc3 on move 3 the entire time, so I'd love for you to explain how this blatantly incorrect point within this context could have been your point the entire time. Well, actually it wasn't, your original point was about the semi-tarrasch but that point has been abandoned, and now you're kind of searching for a new point to morph into... but your claim here is just blatantly wrong.