Queens gambit declined help I need to learn it

@15

"Make sure you can recapture with a pawn in the case of cxd. "
Then 2...c6 is more to the point: recapture with a wing pawn.
No, 2...e6 is mainly to open the diagonal of Bf8.

@12

"The mainline please, that would be very helpful."
++ It is unclear what the mainline is.

@4

"Pick some good players from about fifty to a hundred years ago who used to play the Queen's Gambit Declined. "
++ Modern ways of playing are different.
In the Capablanca - Alekhine match 4 Bg5 was played. Nowadays players prefer 4 Bf4.
In those days the exchange variation 4 cxd5 was rarely played, and if it was played, it was with the intention of a minority attack on the queen's side: b4, a4, Rc1, b5 to get black a weak pawn on c6. Kasparov changed that and played Qc2, O-O-O, f3, Nge2, g4, h4 attacking on the king's side.

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1012507

https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1049648

Can someone tell me how to play chess? I don't know, just got here.

Hi chess coach you probably know a lot about this opening so pls tell me all you know so that I can play with the opening in tournament play and be happily ever after.

If the OP is just now trying to learn how to open with the Queen's Gambit, then they are clearly a beginner. Do you honestly believe that a beginner would be better off trying to imitate Carlsen or Ding rather than learning how the opening was originally played by the Old Masters?

Most of your advice up to now has been more sensible than this (although that's setting the bar rather low).

Allow me to offer an analogy:

Suppose I was just now learning to drive a car. Should I try to imitate Max Verstappen, racing around at 300 km/hr, engine howling and tires squealing? Or just drive cautiously like the driving instructor shows me? After all, who knows more about driving, a Formula-1 champion or some anonymous guy who has never won a major race?

@25

"Do you honestly believe that a beginner would be better off trying to imitate Carlsen or Ding rather than learning how the opening was originally played by the Old Masters?"
++ Yes. This is how the Old Masters played it and no, that is no longer relevant.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1001141 

to be fair, blueemu, a dedicated driving instructor would hardly be like old masters. Old masters would be like... well, I don't know nascar or formula 1 history, but someone who won a race a long time ago in those circuits.

@27

Exactly. Someone aspiring formula-1 racing should study Verstappen and not Fangio.

To be fair, tygxc, I feel like studying old masters would be more beneficial. They played at a lower level compared to today's top players, but at the same time, it makes it easier to comprehend ideas. Logical chess by chernev was a book filled with such games, and a lot of "obvious principles", many of which were incorrect and often broken, but at the time, such structure and discipline was needed for my chess. It allowed me to think about chess better; and as you improve, you can always switch.

But perhaps I'm wrong.

All my life I've climbed ladders one rung at a time.

Perhaps I should give tygxc's method a try... stepping from the ground all the way to the TOP rung of the ladder in a single step.

Still sounds like I'm risking groinal strains attempting something that isn't going to work anyway.

Let us look at an example.

Is 1972 old enough? Does Fischer qualify as an Old Master? After all he is dead.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044366

Impressive, is not it? So let us play like Fischer did here.

Now a more recent game:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1641833 
Why did Nakamura play 13 Bd3 and not Fischer's powerful 13 Bb5?

The explanation is this game:
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1049648

known to Nakamura and Carlsen, but not yet to Fischer or Spassky.

If rung 13 of a ladder is broken, then it is wise not to step on it.
If Nakamura skips rung 13, then he probably knows it is broken, so it is prudent to skip it too.

Thank you very much I will now study the old masters games in the hope of getting better at this opening. Would you suggest a specific old master to study? Like Fischer? 
or Jose Capablanca? Or Alexander Alekhine? Someone to study who you would think would make the most impact on my opening skills.

Test

I'm not understanding anything lol. Can somebody explain me shortly what does everything you talkin' bout mean. I'm kinda lost.

@34
The original poster asked how to learn the Queen's Gambit Declined.
Consensus is that he should study grandmaster games with it.
One view is that he should study old games, as these are easier to understand.
Another view is that he should study modern games, as these are more correct.

Now imagine that he reaches the end of his memorized line of play, and has to start thinking for himself.

Which forms the better starting position... a good position from the old masters that the player actually understands, or a (theoretically) fractionally better position from modern players that the player lacks the skill to understand at all?

When it comes to learning the Queen's Gambit Declined, I think players would be wise to start with the 1927 World Championship, played between Alekhine and Capablanca.

That match was 34 games long - and 32 of those games were Queen's Gambit Declined games.

It's a great way to see several different lines in action, and to see the impact of these lines, as the players adjusted and tweaked their play throughout the match.

- Reuben Fine's Ideas Behind the Openings (Algebraic Edition) is an old classic that spends a lot of time explaining the ideas behind the moves in several lines of the QGD. I consider it another excellent starting point, for understanding.