Question about the Queen's Gambit

A very interesting post.
Willingness to give up bishop for knight in the opening is often part of good play.
Whereas many authorities often say 'have the Two Bishops'
Does either one leave the beginner with much?
How about 'intermediate player'?
Depends on how you define 'intermediate player'.
Bishops and knights. Difficulties.
Knight moves and forks and possibilities are often hard to spot.
But selection of bishop placement can be very difficult.
True in all phases of the game.
Idea: always claiming 'always play to have the Two Bishops' and 'A knight is always better than a bishop' are both dogmatic.
Chigorin was very strong - I'd have to think he was 'kind of joking' about the second one.
---------------------------------
If the player with white favors playing the Queen's gambit then what reply might most take him out of his comfort zone?
how about the Benko gambit?
d4. Nf6. No more Queen's gambit.
d4 does nothing to prevent or deter black's most important move.
So white plays e4 more than d4.
Point: if you want to play the Queen's gambit then you have to prepare for the Nf6 reply too.

So called bishop pair is strong in positions, when both bishop can work on several diagonals, can attack some pawns or pieces in opponents camp or prevent opponent pieces from being active. Such positions sre mostly those with no or few pawns in the center. In positions with blocked center bishop pair is not so usefull. In early phase of queens gambit declined center is closed, so threat of eliminating Knight f6 defending pawn d5 by bishop can definitely be more important that bishop pair. All depend on concrete calculation.

I agree with that. I have to agree.
Black's knight at f6 is a very big piece in chess openings.
So is White's knight at f3.
So much so that in good play either side often gives up their c-bishop for the other side's g-knight.
I actually prefer queen-bishop. And King-knight. For the terminology.
Black's queen bishop is often called (black's) lightsquare bishop.
And white's queen-bishop often referred to as his darksquare bishop.
Advantage of those terms: no 'subscribing' to notation 'orthodoxy' there.
--------------------
Regarding white playing Bxf6 in the Queen's Gambit ...
and 'concrete calculation' ...
'calculation' usually refers to tactics. Not positional play.
So if there's little or 'tactics' arising following Bxf6 with black recapturing with either his Queen or his darksquare bishop .... then there may be 'nothing to calculate). For some moves after that.
There's also white recapturing with his g-pawn.
That can be much more Loaded!

While I do agree a lot, there are a few flaws in this thinking. To start, GM games usually go off course very fast, with moves you won't expect from a lower rated person. Since GM games are very high level and tend to go off theory quite fast in some cases, and there are lines that GMs play that lead to some offbeat positions that would normally never occur in a lower rated game. Still though it is a good way to learn an opening. I suggest you pair it with a full analysis from a strong player or a video lesson providing info on various moves and ideas in the opening.

Well, calculation can also be used for positional play. Generally, you need to 'calculate' lines even in a less tactical position and check imbalances regularly to make sure your position is strong and to not cause weaknesses in the position. This can require lots of thought and calculation to find the best line in any given position.

Would you agree that positional play is much harder to get right than tactical play - which can also be very hard?

Positional play is definitely much harder to understand for less experienced player. That is why concerned should be taught open games first. Strategy is more simple in open games and there is more tactics, which is (should be) more attractive for less experienced player. This is not what i invented myself, it was written for example by Richard Réti, who was top 5 in the world around year 1924.

Lasker stated in his manual that positional play takes far more hours of instruction than tactical play.
I think there's often a mistake made by putting positional and tactical in 'separate boxes' too much.
Because they go hand in hand.
You can do tactics to improve your position.
You can do positional to get tactics.
In addition to the obvious tactics to get tactics and positional to get positional.
And you can do both at once - including in the same move.

Yes, strategy and tactics go hand in hand.

Like Anna Rudolf and Sopiko Guramishvili

Yes. Very much agreed.
But I discovered that its a common mistake to separate them too much.
To discuss that idea further:
Are most moves in chess games positional or tactical or tactical-positional?
If I had to guess - I'd say positional.
Another way to put it:
You've got a position in front of you.
Its your move.
Are there any checks available for either side?
What about captures? How about mate threats?
How about threats on the queens and rooks and other pieces?
Are there any plays like forks and pins and skewers?
Are there pawn-promotion factors ?
----------------------------------------
So often the answer to all these questions - on so Many moves ...
is No.
But one must move. What to do?
The game is designed to produce unfamiliar and unexpected and novel situations and one must figure out a reasonable move.
Can you just plug variables into a formula to obtain your good move or better - Best move?
The point is ... No. Very much of the time.

Good players do both tactics and positional play. Well.
And point stands:
Games come to points where there's no formula-tactics ...
and players have to figure out a good enough move.
And that's maybe where the titled players become titled.
--------------------
try something more tangible.
Be3 versus Bf4.
The experienced player would know more about the nuances of comparing those two moves.
And the 'ins and outs' of each. (vicissitudes)
Is it always going to be obvious which one?
No.
Could it be that both are 'good' in many positions?
Many does not mean 'all'.
-----------------------
In some - neither. Or Bg5 is 'the move'.
How about Bd2? Ugh.
But it does come in.
Could that be played positionally and be a good move as opposed to breaking a pin of a c3 knight or blocking a check?
Maybe. Maybe the plan is to get the bish to c3 and hit the center and the Kside.
Maybe its just to get the rook to d1 or c1 or even e1.
Bd2. You don't see it much early on in the Queen's gambit.
But 'opening rules' are made to be broken!
Bg5 is usually the big move.
Could you be playing Bf4 in the QG and its 'not a London'?
Bf4 is often played instead to 'mess black up'. I think that often works. Well.

Every move includes tactics. Because just not to blunder your piece is tactics too.

Definitely, it even affects me. I sometimes find the tactical idea to puzzles, but I can never find the last positionally thought move. Tis is one of my weaknesses.

Hi !
Positional. Tactical. Calculate. Chess terminology.
'Quiet move'.
The Queen's gambit can get very tactical - all openings can.
But its 'quieter' than the Englund gambit.
d4 e5. 'Noisy' opening.
Or - d4 d5 e4
The Blackmar! (Blackmar-Diemer)
Not a 'quiet' opening.
-----------------------------
But the Queen's gambit starts (a lot of the time)
 by d4 d5 c4 e6.
(it could also start by d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 d5 - and we're back in the Queen's gambit again. If black plays Bb4 instead of d5 then we've got a Nimzo. (Nimzo-Indian defense)
--------------------
Point: d4 d5 c4 e6.
There's four moves there. One of them was definitely tactical!
c4. Tactical move attacking black's d-pawn. Its also a positional move too.
What about e6 ....?
Tactical? Some might say 'No. e6 is Defense there. Defend the pawn at d5.'
Others might say - 'e6 is tactics too because defending against tactics is tactics.'
-------------------------------------
Chess has strict rules. Like what checkmate means.
But are there strict rules about general chess terminology?
No.
Are there arguments about that?
Yes.