Looking at Kramnik's Games Makes Me Want to Play the Semi-Slav

Maybe.

??????

Semi-slav is extremely tactical, and not exactly slow paced (unless you avoid all of the main lines, giving white an easy edge, or white decides to play the moscow).

d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 0-0 Be2 e5 0-0 (where can black not capture after Qxd8?)

I talk to my coach, and I'm like - "I couldn't think of what to do here", or "why did my position get slightly akward even though I should have a big edge", and he shows me the most obvious move that I should have played and looks so strong.

Then I go mess up again. Just can't find that obvious move among the mess of pieces on the chess board.

Another thing I feel about seeing grandmaster games is that if my opponents resigned in the same positions their opponents resign in I would win a lot more games.

I don't like neither the semi-slav nor the KID :P

semi-slav is what I used to play but I was sick of having a symmetrical position with a rubbish piece on c8. Even after achieving the c5 break (sometimes after some effort) I feel I'm nothing but equal. The position is also really stale, for me, while white's lsB pointing at h7 costantly it's a pain. I saw the game Anand-Aronian, but it's an exception.

I don't really know what I'm playing for in the semi-slav.

The KID, I tried it for a while, but it's difficult to play and really dangerous if you don't know exactly what you're doing. I don't have problems with the bishop on g7 (Elubas gave a great explation)...I have problems with the Bayonet attack and the costant feeling that white is ahead in the race.

Also the fact that there are tons of variations in the KID, each one of them you need exactly how to respond, really means additional difficulties.

I now play the Nimzo and Bogo. While there are still a lot of variations in the Nimzo many of them are intuitive. A great advantage is that black has a lot of ways to proceed so while I have my strict repertoire, for white preparing exact lines against the Nimzo should be pretty hard. On the other hand I chose the Bogo as its companion because of its simplicity, and it's probably less known so chances are white is not too booked up on this one either.

In both cases, relatively easy game to play and no bad pieces.

Is the Slav sharper and more tactical than the Queen's Gambit Declined?

That surprises me.  I figured with your tactical ability you'd love something like the KID.

Looking at Kramnik's games make me want to play...

better.

Whatever openings he plays, he plays with such precision it's amazing. But it's because he has such a fantastic understanding of middle games and endgames. He fully deserved his victory over Kasparov. To hold on to the world title for 8 years and two successful matches is pretty special in this new era. If Anand manages to hold on to the title this year, he will have defended it once more than Kramnik did. 

The Slav is a type of Queen's Gambit Declined. 

Is 1.d4 d5.2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 e6 5.Bg5 A Slav, a Semi-Slav, or a QGD?  

How about 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bg5?

If you really want to nitpick and argue that it is or isn't a QGD, then your answer depends on how you categorize that opening. It's one of the most complex openings in all of chess, leading to the Botvinnik, the Moscow, and the Anti-Moscow variations, among others.

Agreed! (I just saw that comment after I wrote mine.)

I'm not a huge fan of Kramnik's for the same reason I wasn't a huge fan of Karpov's.  That being that his games seem to be filled with cold analytical precision without any of the swashbuckling of a Fischer/Kasparov/Tal type player.

Having said that I have become a big fan of Karpov in recent years because in hindsight it's easy to see how much talent Karpov brought to those positions where he had to squeeze someone to death with only the slightest advantage.

So perhaps Kramnik will grow on me...

I think for a white player the KID is much harder to prepare for than the semi slav because you have to prepare for so many more black options. For example in the repertoire books by Khalifman "Opening for White according to Kramnik". Almost a third of the books is devoted to the KID.

I really need to get those books since I've started to play more 1. Nf3 and 1. d4

I don't find the Black side of the KID overly difficult at the club level.  I wouldn't play it against an IM or GM or anything like that (I'd play the Orthodox QGD).

But against people at the club or at weekend tournmaments?  I have no issues with that.  After each tournament I can go home and check my games in chessbase to see where the deviations were and how I can improve on my play.

Anand v Aronian is not an exception in that it happened to be sharp. That was the "quieter" variation of the semi-slav, the botvinnik and moscow/anti-moscow variations have many more challenges.

But you do control the center. Having a lot of pawns in the center is not needed to control it. And when you have less pawns in the center, they are less likely to become a liability, and this lack of weaknesses often gives a hypermodern player the flexibility to do some flank play. Another way to look at it: since his pieces already control the center, he can use his pawns to focus on the flanks sometimes.

You should understand both schools of thought. If you only understand one, I don't think you really understand the center. The whole point of the center is mobility. If you have two pawns in the center that need to be in constant protection, then your pieces are on passive, not active squares -- the very opposite of what having central control is supposed to achieve. Sometimes it's nice to simply have the d and e pawns exchanged, as then no lines are blocked, all the pieces can get out, and there are no center pawns to babysit; other times a lack of a pawn center pushes your pieces backwards by the opponent's pawns. You can't avoid these kinds of issues simply by playing classical openings.

Well, like I said, if your center pawns are attacked, your pieces may in fact be forced to passive squares to defend them, the opposite of what pawns in the center are supposed to achieve. The whole point of central control is mobility -- if occupying in the center somehow hurts your mobility, like in the example I described, it would actually hurt your position to do so! The irony is that you put the pawns in the center, ultimately, for piece activity (pawns themselves are not strong attacking units -- the important thing is how they give your pieces outposts) -- it is in fact not so different from a hypermodern strategy in this way. So I will say again, if you only focus on one philosophy, you won't really understand the center, perhaps the most important part of the game.

In fact I think it doesn't take long to find yourself doing both hypermodern and classical strategies over the course of a game. Just because you start out with a "classical" move like 1 d4 doesn't mean you won't end up embracing the idea of giving up those pawns for open lines.

For example, there are lots of hanging pawn structures, arising from exchanges between pawns on c4, d4, c5, d5, e.g., white plays cxd5, black takes back ...exd5; white also plays dxc5, black recaptures ...bxc5. White is fighting against the uncontested black pawns on c5 and d5 -- but this often arises in a 1 d4 opening, a classical opening.

And I am not telling you to play hypermodern openings -- I think you can learn plenty about the hypermodern by playing classical openings, ironically enough. The truth about chess is that it's not as easy to dictate the style of a game with the opening as one may think. The sharpest game of your life might happen in a "dull" opening -- the point is that the opening is, at least for most, only a small fraction of the actual game!

But I bet you will find plenty of situations in your games where the correct idea is to trade off some of your center pawns no matter what opening you play. And you will find times when you should keep them. It really depends on the position.

Even in the french, where white has a "big center," you see all the time white willingly exchanging it away if he can benefit -- when black plays ...f6 to strike the d4 e5 white pawn chain, white sometimes doesn't mind playing exf6 if he can secure an outpost for pieces on the e5 square. Other times he continues to bolster the center -- for white to play successfully in this so called classical opening, he has to keep in mind possibilities where he can give up his center as well.

Hypermodernism in chess isn't well summed up with "control the center with pieces" it should go on to say you counter attack the center with pawn moves.

Anyway as Elubas more or less said, space isn't itself actually worth anything... what you want is mobility/activity of the pieces.   You can't win with good pawns... the best "good pawns" can do for you is promote to active pieces.  All other advantages are actually secondary to the superior mobility of pieces in an area.  Space, a secure king, good structure, etc give you the best chances for mobile/active pieces.

Actually this may be a good way to teach a beginners chess... show them positions of a winning side and illustrate superior mobility in an area... oh wait they do that already it's call endgames lol.  I guess that just proves my point