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

Sort:
Avatar of KillerSOS

I really enjoy QBA as White... but I avoid it all together with Kings Indian in QP game as black. 

Avatar of Elubas

I'm a houdini-boy (Of course I do test its evaluation and play out many moves to see if it doesn't suddenly find something, but I find myself agreeing with it here), so bear with me, but it can't find much advantage at all for white in the QGA surprisingly. Same for many lines of the QGD, the main exception being the exchange variation because the static pawn structure makes it more difficult for black to make freeing exchanges.

What's funny is that black will even play moves like ...a6 (even after white has played Bxc4 for instance), which when I first saw it, seemed ridiculous and cheeky to the extreme. In lines where white plays e3, white has an extra center pawn, but his queen's bishop is blocked in, and the pawns simply don't make that many threats, to the point where black even has time to move pawns on the queenside with ...a6, ...b5, then bring the bishop to the long diagonal. He will generally get in ...c5 very quickly if he desires, always giving him the option of trading bishop pawn for center pawn, like what black did in reverse when he played ...dxc4. White in my opinion should fight for an advantage in more modest ways, such as thinking of a pawn breakthrough with d5, or e4 followed by d5. But it's not so easy to achieve and it often just leads to lots of exchanges that don't really net white much progress.

White can also be more aggressive with an e2-e4 push early on, rather than e2-e3, but even in these lines, white's pawns on e4 and d4 are just pawns -- pawns in themselves are not going to create threats against the position, meanwhile they can be attacked.

So I think the QGA is in effect as good as the QGD, even if it may look less natural. Black's apparent concession of the center is surprisingly not bad at all -- it is rather difficult for white to make anything out of his central majority. It should be noted that in the QGA, due to the open lines, black's pieces are actually less bottled up than in the QGD; for instance, the c8 bishop usually finds a good home on b7 pretty easily. Black just has to be careful about possible central pushes for white like d4-d5 or e4-e5; I think that if black plays accurately, those ideas will not give him any problems.

The last question then for you is taste. You can try it out, see if you like it, because it is totally sound and arguably not worse than black's main defenses against d4. It often does tend to be more of an equalizing opening, but I had always been fascinated about how black was able to play those slow ...a6 moves and totally get away with them. But yes, it's generally more for solid players.

Note that when I say QGA I mainly mean it as a strategic formation, not the declaration that black is going to take and hold the pawn. There are some strange lines where black really can hold the pawn (e.g., 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4 3 Nf3 c6 followed by ...Be6 might hold it), but the moves he makes are so awkward that when I face it with white I just don't care that he keeps it. If it's that important to him I'll let him lose coordination and he can have his ill-gotten gains.

That doesn't mean it's necessarily bad though! I think white is better, but black's position is still solid there, and it might freak out white players who are told that black automatically loses when he tries to hold the pawn. There is still a game to be played.

Avatar of Elubas

"Sure, white has central control, also sure, he has very active play, but he does have to find targets to attack. And this is far from easy."

This quote by IM pfren is a good summary of what it's like when black infamously tries to hold that pawn on c4, whether in the QGA or slav. When you don't have targets, it's just hard to actually make anything out of a space advantage. As I have said, two pawns on e4 and d4 do not aim themselves venomously at a king, and they may even block lines for the bishops and rooks. They do eat up space, but it is not easy to convert this into an actual attack, especially if the pawns are in need of protection.

Avatar of Abhishek2

wow this old topic has been revived.

Avatar of Lyndras

Yeah, it was such good feedback though. 

Avatar of rrrttt

I like it because its much less cramped than the slav and or QGD

Avatar of SmyslovFan

That's a very poor reason to play the QGA. It's often far more cramped than the Slav. The QGD has known freeing maneuvers that relieve the cramping in key positions.

The QGA is a fully playable opening, but it's playable only if you focus on developing your pieces quickly and you don't mind a slightly passive position.

Avatar of Elubas

It depends on how we are defining cramped. Some people do it based on how much space our pawns take up; in that case one could say the QGD is less cramped than the QGA (the slav I think is usually not that cramped in most lines) because of black's d5 pawn in the center.

But I think that misses the big picture. Despite this pawn on d5 black gets, the point is that most of his pieces are often on passive squares, such as bishop on e7, bishop often locked on c8 for a while, and the d5 pawn in fact closes off lines, which decreases the scope of his pieces rather than increasing them. Meanwhile in the QGA, black's pieces tend to have more potential scope since the d file is opened and the long diagonal is open. Black's bishop has a few more early options as well, such as c5 if recapturing after a ...c5 break, or putting the bishop on d6 because he doesn't have to worry about a pin with Bg5.

I wouldn't say the QGA is better or worse than the QGD (in general), it just has its own trade-offs. Obviously in the QGD black can solve a lot of his problems by playing ...c5, with or without ...dxc4, or by moving his f6 knight to exchange bishops, assuming a bishop is on g5. The advantage to having a pawn on d5 is that it is harder for white to push forward with d4-d5 and/or e4.

Like I said earlier though, I think the exchange variation, 1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 Nf6 4 cxd5 exd5, is a great way for white to play, as black would normally be looking to liquidate the center with ...dxc4 and ...c5 but now this is hard to do and his development tends to be less natural than white's. In fact, when it comes to that particular variation, I think the QGA is objectively stronger. In the typical 4 Bg5 or 4 Bf4 lines, the accepted and declined are about equal to each other.

Nonetheless I don't mind playing the black side of any QGD, and that's my defense of choice to the queen pawn at the moment.

Avatar of ozzie_c_cobblepot

My view is that the QGA is easier to prepare for as white, and has a less-well-defined path to equality for black, compared with the Lasker or Tartakower.

I recently was able to prepare an entire line against the QGA in an OTB tourney game against a 2350, in about an hour and a half. I left that preparation with the conclusion that the QGA is perfectly playable but still a little struggle for black to get the elusive "well now it's obvious that e position is equal."

Avatar of ozzie_c_cobblepot

That being said, I absolutely recommend it. It's valuable to learn openings to that level of preparation, and it should take about four hours I'd say.

What I do as preparation is to take notes on my preparation, sort of writing an article to myself, complete with diagrams and variations. And I do it in Evernote, so that it is accessible from my smartphone. You never know when you're going to wonder "dammit what was that line white should be playing against 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 dxc4 ?????"

Avatar of pfren

Black's life is far from easy in the QGA. He does achieve liquidating a few central pawns, but he risks falling in a passive position.

Here is a nice game I won recently (factly, I dunno why my opponent resigned: the final position is won indeed, but it needs accuracy to avoid a fortress by black's horse and pawns). It's Rublevsky's pet line (as Black), given also as equal in Sakaev's QGA book. Far from being the truth... white has a permanent, annoying endgame bind.



Avatar of SmyslovFan

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.

Avatar of Quasimorphy

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.

Avatar of ozzie_c_cobblepot

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.

Avatar of SmyslovFan

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.

Avatar of Vease

@ 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.

Avatar of EmptyBox303

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.

Avatar of AngryPuffer

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
Avatar of tygxc

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

Avatar of Optimissed

I would say that you don't play the QGA when you have to win. Declined would be safer if you really must win as black. Against the QGA white can easily draw. The QGA reversed isn't even a good weapon for white. Not like the Grunfeld Reversed, which has a lot of venom.