The Queens Gambit Accepted...Would you recommend it?

And even if you have a line prepared against White's 3.e3, you also have to be able to play against 3.e4, where white plays in true gambit style.

The QGA isn't very popular among coaches because of these difficulties. It's much simpler just to learn how to play the QGD Tarrasch, for example.

I would not be surprised if the QGA became more popular among GMs occasionally though. It tends to fluctuate in and out of fashion at the higher levels.

I've passed through many 1.d4 defenses, most of which I probably shouldn't have been trying to play in the first place. The QGA was the one I abandoned just before taking up what I play now-- the QGD Tarrasch.

Is the Tarrasch really simpler? I feel like entire books could be, and have been, written about the IQP. I wouldn't want to read an entire book on the QGA queenless middlegame and endgame, because it would bore me out of my gourd.

In terms of being simpler to learn, yes. The Tarrasch is much simpler to learn. Ntirlis wrote an excellent book on the QGD Tarrasch. He spends +200 pages on the position after

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cd5 ed5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.0-0 0-0

and only about 100 pages on White's alternatives before move 8. Essentially, there's one big idea for white against the Tarrasch.

In other words, it doesn't take much to learn the basics of the position for Black. An interested student could learn enough to reach a playable middlegame in an afternoon. I don't think the same could be said for the Queen's Gambit Accepted. Of course, it would take quite a bit more effort to play the Tarrasch at a professional level.

The Tarrasch also offers the avid student an excellent introduction to Isolate Queen Pawn positions, which Nimzovich considered to be essential for chess players to master. The middle games that arise from the Tarrasch are rich and complex, but Black can reach a playable middlegame with very little rote memorization.  The same can't be said of some of the more precise 3.e4 lines of the QGA.

But you're right. It's doubtful that the Grandmaster Repertoire Series will feature a tome devoted to playing the Queen's Gambit Accepted as Black any time soon.

@ IMpfren

That line is one I have thought about playing for White, looking at the position after blacks 8th move is the main advantage Whites control of the d file? Everything else is symmetrical (other than Black hasn't castled). I play a similar line in the classical kings indian with 7.exd5 exd5 8.Qxd8 Rxd8 9.Bg5 where White is supposed to have no advantage but its possible to grind out wins against players who don't know the line or just don't like end games.

I guess your opponent resigned because he didn't want to suffer for another 30+ moves in a position where he has to rely on you going wrong just to make a draw.

I recommend it just to spite players who are looking for a positional QGD game lol. QGA is usually not recommended for beginners because it somewhat violates one of the core opening principles, which is controlling the center, and beginners accepting the gambit might not know how to fight back/prevent white from fully controlling the center and get into unpleasant positions. QGA is still very much an okay opening for black(aka "not losing"). I would suggest having a few moves of engine prep and study some of the common ideas of the opening for both sides before accepting the gambit. I'm fairly new to chess(playing for 10 months), and some 5~7 moves of rough engine prep plus knowledge of some common ideas in the QGA has served me very well at my level(1000~1100 rapid) whenever someone gambits the c pawn against me.

the QGA is great for beginners and is great for dynamic players.

• its easy to learn and very simple
• development is typically very easy and simple to understand
• dynamic and fun
• sound 
• fun counterattacking chances

It is fully sound. Several world champions have played it in classical games: Tal, Fischer, Kasparov, Kramnik, Anand...

Here is a recent World Championship correspondence game (average 5 days/move, engines allowed)
https://www.iccf.com/game?id=1360204

Its not for amateurs but its a shame looking at GM games that they tolerate c4 and close themselves into defence. They are not feeling confident yet to capture the impertinent c4

Tarrasch / QGA are both great openings... probably my top 2 preferred d4 defenses at the club level. Though the Slav is also very cool.

The QGA is actually considered more sound than the Tarrasch at top level, not that it really matters for anyone in this thread.

In the past the main reason the QGA was abandoned at top level was 3. e4, this gives white alot of dynamic play and it's difficult to equalize. But as engines have grown more powerful it was found fairly recently that b5 followed shortly by Qb6 tends to equalize if black plays sharply for a while, as a result the QGA has seen a resurgence -

For a club player... I think the most important consideration for choosing between the Tarrasch and the QGA is how the 2 repertoires handle the English & Reti. Namely that the Tarrasch / Semi-Tarrasch can be reached often and reliably from both the English and Reti whereas the QGA will usually not be reached, since any English or Reti player worth their salt tries to avoid typical d4 lines.

Which means as a QGA player you'll need to find something else. For that, a good choice is the Kings English 1... e5, which is a reversed sicilian... and against the Reti I like 1... c5 which is the sicilian invitation. This can often be made to transpose into either an accelerated dragon or some other fairly straightforward symmetrical lines.

So as a QGA player, I would say the ideal e4 defense to play in conjunction is the Sicilian since it contributes to your Reti / English repertoire in a way that makes up for the QGAs lack of contribution. And if you are a Sicilian player I'd recommend the QGA since it's just a great opening.

Otherwise you'll probably have to play some other d4 line against the English / Reti which is really not desirable.

The QGA is played a bit more often at the top level, but both are perfectly playable with just a bit of analysis.

Here’s an article on Dubov’s handling of the Tarrasch. And yes, Dubov plays at the top level.

https://en.chessbase.com/post/dubov-s-tarrasch