Who plays Grunfeld and why is it awesome?

I play the Grunfeld, and to me its greatest asset is its inherent flexibility.  Unlike other QP openings, black isn't surrendering a huge amount of space like he does with the Indian defenses, nor is he restricted in the use of his minor pieces to any meaningful extent.  Most importantly, because black's pieces ultimately attack across the center, white has to deal with threats on both the kingside and queenside.

I find it much more dynamic than other 1. d4 Nf6 defenses, which is why I use it.  Seems especially useful against positional players - and most 1. d4 players are more positional than tactical.

Very interesting observations. 

Peter Svidler, perhaps the world's foremost authority on the Grunfeld, has said that the Grunfeld should lead to equality with best play. But the theory of the Grunfeld is so vast, and there are so many different ways for White to play it that it just doesn't make sense for anyone to learn it. One has to spend a tremendous amount of time staying current on all the lines, and there are much easier systems to play. 

In correspondence, where you can look up all the latest lines, it may make more sense to play. Also, if you can predict your opponent's opening, it may make sense too. But for most players, it's just too vast an ocean to bother with in competitive chess tournaments.

All openings are heavily theorised SmyslovFan, Nimzo, Kings Indian, Queens indian, Slav, Semi-slav, Bogo etc etc and white has many ways of playing each.  Are we to give up because theory is extensive?  We must play something and I am fed up giving my opponents an easy time with maintaining a passive stance in the QGD! No more, they are going to enter the complications same as I, its Pistols or French Foils at dawn, no more pillow fights!

Here us a beautiful lecture on a game played by Nakamura against the Karjakin who employed the Grunfeld, it was a positional masterclass.

Bent Larsen used to say 'Just play the opening, and look up the theory afterwards!', and John Nunn has made a similar point. When you take up a new opening, you have to be prepared to take a few early losses, it's impossible to learn everything at once. It's always hard to stomach having to take a few hard knocks, but it's part of the learning process.

This opening is just way more interesting than anything else against the Queen Pawn.

it appears to me and please correct me if I am wrong, but generally and I must emphasise this 'generally' black seems to favour going in for a liquidation of pieces and entering an endgame where he or she hopes to make use of some kind of an advantage. 

 Isn't that interesting?

I played the Gruenfeld a few times and my conclusion was that it was a great tool for lower-rated players to knock the stuffing out of me.

Sometimes they just blew me off the board by advancing a wave of central pawns. Other times they got the queenside majority and queened a passed pawn.

Even worse, recently somebody played the English Opening against me and after ten moves I realized that I had gotten tricked into playing the Gruenfeld against my own best judgement. Lost again.

If an opening doesn't make sense to you, don't play it.... 

I started playing the Grunfeld last year. It's a demanding opening, but a very rewarding one if you put in the work. Expect a few rough games at first, but it can be a powerful weapon if you persist and develop a feel for its dynamics. A lot of 1.d4 players do not like to face it, since many of the safe approaches offer White very little. Yes, another plus of the opening is that many of the endings favor Black in the long term. This is an added psychological pressure on White, especially if you know your opponent likes to play for static advantages.

This was one of the openings I chose to pursue the NM title. I wanted a high quality opening that allowed me to fight for the initiative as Black. I think it can be effective at under 2000 level as well, since many players tend not to have a well thought out response. Expect to face a number of deviations. Against a sideline, you may not get it right the first time, but if you study the precise counter you'll be ready for the next game. I never felt like the opening was at fault - it's surprising how often Black can even play for advantage against deviations. It's not an amateur-friendly opening - that cuts both ways. If you learn to adapt to its challenges though, your opponents will probably hate to see it.

If you play the King's Indian, there is a specific practical advantage of learning the Grunfeld. Many fianchetto system players have more difficulty proving an advantage against the Grunfeld. I tend to prefer the dynamic center approach to the ...c6 systems, although the latter is very solid. The Fianchetto can suck a lot of the life out of the King's Indian, so it's nice to have an alternative that offers lively play.

Bon the Cat's advice sounds right to me.  

The clubs I play in are loaded with A- and B-rank players, and I've had no issues getting out of the opening OK or better with the Grunfeld.  Hypermodern defenses are popular because they are dynamic, offering black real winning chances.

Yes, there's a lot of theory, but if you understand the hypermodern methods in general, it should be relatively easy to grasp what the right continuations are.  It is mainly the classical-school view of the opening that runs you into trouble.

Saying there is a lot of theory in the Grunfeld is true ... but also largely irrelevant at amateur level.  The Grunfeld was my main weapon until about 1600-1700, mostly because it lead to piece play in a more open position, something other Black defences struggled to achieve.  I didn't know a wit of theory (I knew the basic plans and the first five move), and though I lost games because of the opening, I also won because of it.  My knowledge consisted of playing c5 and then seeing what happened.

I ultimately dropped the Grunfeld because I became dissatisifed with some positions.  There would be lines where Black plays c5 and White is able to answer with d5; sometimes Black plays e6 and White is even able to play d6 and e5.  I read somewhere that Black is fine in these positions, because White's centre is immobile and can't be used for an attack.  Unfortunately, I didn't know how to play these positions at all; I didn't understand blockading or Queenside majorities or how to play in anything but an open position.  My lack of chess skill was the fault, and I switched to different openings that hid this lack of ability better.

Also, more and more people played sidelines, so the London, Colle, Tromp and the like, and the Grunfeld didn't seem to be a universal answer (this is the same reason I play and then give-up the Nimzo, a lack of universality).  Finally, as I've improved at chess, I've found hypermodern positions fun ... but I play classical centres so much better, so the Grunfeld remains relegated to my past.

Qa5 and grab the pawn also appeared to me to be quite risky as white has a lead in development and formidable central control.  Colle doesn’t do well against blacks Kingside fianchetto, don't know about the Tromp or the London.

Grunfeld is should not be played without study and praparation. If you want to study it , it will consume huge time and even though you will not get comfortable & familiar position.

The problem with the Colle, London et al is that Black doesn't get his normal play.  That is, White plays c3, e3 and d4, and even if Black plays c5, the g7-Bishop is staring at a firm pawn chain.  Getting in e5 is hard and the Bishop will remain passive.  White may not get his normal attack, but Black doesn't get his, either.  That's why I dislike it.

Quite right.

Have you tried learning to play the QGD, or not?

I almost always played semi slav and was familiar with general ideas, taking away from the centre once white had placed the Kings bishop, playing ...c5 and trying for Meran type positions.  Even against considerably lower rated opponents it was an easy life for them.

yes but as you state neither does white, Colle bishop bites of granite, gone are all the sacrifices on h7 ideas.  We cant always get what we want