I'm always in search of a good defense to 1.d4. I recently decided to try the Queen's Gambit Accepted. I went on and purchased How To Beat 1.d4 by James Rizzitano.
I began to look at a few of the non-mainline variations. That's usually what I do first. I just play natural moves myself and look them up.
Here are two variations that I looked at:
Variation A
Variation B
They both have virtually symmetrical pawn structures and look drawish to me. I can't really find a way to complicate the game and beat a lower rated or even player. Is this a problem with the Queen's Gambit Accepted?
Perhaps, the QGA should only be used against someone stronger (where getting a draw isn't bad).
I'd be happy to hear other people's thoughts on this.
I don`t like that 4 and 2 pawn structure too much either.
I wouldn`t play the QGA if you definately need to win or you think drawing a game is like contracting the plague.
It can work out marvelously though sometimes though and there are lots of groovy variations but they can`t be forced is all.
I only play quiet lines so I wouldn't know what to recomend to you. Here is my filosophy: with black the first thing you want to do is achieve a draw, only then achieve a victory, you know as long as you maintain the tension but decline to take any decicive action your adversary will end up making a mistake. I remember greenpawn making a fuss about this being the "solution" to chess. This is maybe a little too obvious and rethorical, but hey I didn't claim I was going to say anything brilliant.
Originally posted by orion25I think you pretty much summed up Tigran Petrosian's approach to chess, and he did pretty well with it!
I only play quiet lines so I wouldn't know what to recomend to you. Here is my filosophy: with black the first thing you want to do is achieve a draw, only then achieve a victory, you know as long as you maintain the tension but decline to take any decicive action your adversary will end up making a mistake. I remember greenpawn making a fuss about this bein ...[text shortened]... le too obvious and rethorical, but hey I didn't claim I was going to say anything brilliant.
Paul
Originally posted by MacpoThere are quite a few reasons. You have to learn a lot of theory. Also, I played a few test games, and my opponent played the exchange but left book really early. I ended up with a positon where I had very little winning chances. Some of the other less theoretical lines are equal but can become quite dull. Also, I am generally a very classical player. I don't really like to fianchetto my king's bishop, and I like having a pawn in the center most of the time. I know you give up the center in the QGA, but the majority of the time, it turns into another classical structure (isolated queen's pawn and more space vs play against the isolani). I guess to summarize, the Grunfeld just isn't right for my style.
Why not the Grunfeld as black?
- Joined
- 16 Feb 07
- Moves
- 27653
Originally posted by paulbuchmanfromficsThis is indeed kind of silly. The QGA is well-known as relatively drawish in the main lines. Many GMs (Anand for example), play it as their equivalent of the Petroff for d4 - something to go to when they want a fairly safe draw.
I just thought about something funny. I buy a book titled How To Beat 1.d4, and all I get is drawish positions.
- Joined
- 07 Mar 09
- Moves
- 28926
Both of the variations that you gave displayed completely unambitious play by White. If you're only playing someone who wants a draw then any symmetrical defense is not to be recommended. If White wants to win then there are lines with unbalanced pawn structures and bridge-burning attacks (what about 3. e4! ?) Either play an Indian defense or at least play a Slav or Orthodox so the pawn structure is not fixed early in the game and you will have chances.
HI
"I remember greenpawn making a fuss about this being the "solution" to chess."
This was all tongue in cheek.
I wonder why they call 1.d4 d5 2.c4 a gambit.
if 2...dxc4 Black cannot hang onto the pawn - White can win it back
by force. Tha's not a gambit.
If they play 2.c4 then IMO 2...e5 is good.
Better than wasting a move with 2...dxc4.
In a lot of a cases White will play 2.Nf3 or the 'anti-chess' 2.Bf4
to avoid 2...e5.
I agree 2.Bf4 kills chess. I played a strong player 20 lightning games as black against 2.Bf4 and a London setup. I kept trying to make the game interesting by sacking a pawn or two and he tore me apart by picking off my mistakes. Around game 10, I switched black systems. If he wasn't going to be ambitious, why should I? The games went 1.d4 d5 2.Bf4 Bf5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 e6, and I didn't lose again . ... Every bloody one of them was a draw !
Originally posted by greenpawn34yeah i remember it pretty well as being a joke. But still it is a great truth. By not taking action too soon, waiting for your oponent to over balance himself in an attack, and then strike at his weaker foot. It's in my opinion the best aproach one can have as black. Don't you agree?
HI
"I remember greenpawn making a fuss about this being the "solution" to chess."
This was all tongue in cheek.
I wonder why they call 1.d4 d5 2.c4 a gambit.
if 2...dxc4 Black cannot hang onto the pawn - White can win it back
by force. Tha's not a gambit.
If they play 2.c4 then IMO 2...e5 is good.
Better than wasting a move with 2...dx ...[text shortened]...
In a lot of a cases White will play 2.Nf3 or the 'anti-chess' 2.Bf4
to avoid 2...e5.
Of course by taking this aproach one will risk drawing many games. But by avoiding to create weaknesses in our own camp we will avoid at least being crushed. It will of course all end up on the players strength. But this is the strategy I try to adopt, the problem comes when your openent throws away his strategical advantage of being white and gives you an advantage. Then you will feel forced to decisive action, and he can strike at your weak foot himself.
As for it being called a gambit, I guess it is a temporary pawn sacrifice, so it qualifies as a gambit. But if you can come up with a better name you are free to tell us (and I'd like to hear the suggestions 😉)