1.d4 ... variations. Which and why?

I'm wondering how others have built up their 1. d4 repetoire. I found it hard to make it consistent (the way pieces go and pawn structures) unlike the slav defense and caro-kann which are alot more consistent in the positions that arrise.

-------------------------------------------

GRUNFELD DEFENSE

I found that the repetoire offered by John Cox in his book "1. d4 A Reliable Repetoire for the Improving Player" seemed reasonable (all lines below except this one is from that book), except the Grunfeld lines.

This line is a bit too open for my taste so I found an alternative: Pallisers "Play 1.d4". The Grunfeld line in there:

--------------------------------------------------------------

KING'S INDIAN DEFENSE

Bayonett Attack seems effective:

-----------------------------------------------------

NIMZO-INDIAN

Looks like a solid way to respond.

-----------------------------------------------

BENONI

I always thought this to be quite good for white because it totally cramps black.

--------------------------------------------------

QUEENS GAMBIT DECLINED

A good old minority attack. I'm used to this type of structure from the caro-kann exchange when I play black.

-------------------------------------------------------

QUEENS GAMBIT ACCEPTED

Not sure what to think of this one but it looks reasonable:

-----------------------------------

SLAV

Main line stuff because I'm used to playing this from the black side aswell:

--------------------------------------------

SEMI-SLAV

Pretty sharp but I like white better then black here eventhough it is an equal position probably:

-------------------------------------------

Any thoughts on these openings/lines? How have you built your opening repetoire around 1.d4? Please share.

I played d4 for a brief period of my chess life. I used the Torre Attack, so the positions that occurred were all very similar to one another.

Intresting about the Grunfeld. So e3 or Bf4 are much calmer lines against the Grunfeld or what are the calmer alternatives? I like my bishops outside the pawn chain and I like good structures, so I'm not sure about e3 but Bf4 seems intresting. Btw which exchange sac line is it you didn't like as black?

I think I'm satisfied with the bayonett attack in KID. I get the feeling that black gets squeezed to death fast if he doesn't know his theory well (and I get the feeling that alot of KID players are not that booked up except for the 6 first moves they put out against everything they face).

I thought of playing something like the torre but it just seemed like a totally different opening compared to the classical stuff I've played.

Ah yes I've seen that line. It is quite scary for black isn't it.

I agree.  The Bayonette is a nice thematic way for white to proceed.  If black slips, he is squeezed on the queenside which is what every KID Player (including me) has nightmares about.  But there are lots of good lines against the KID leading to dynamic equality (whatever that means in this dynamic opening). 

What I did was, download all games of Kramnik, build an opening tree from that, and play the lines that are played most or were most successfull. That resulted in a pretty consistent and solid d4 repertoire as white.

The Cox book is excellent.  Stick with it.

I could never do it that way, I pick an opening variation that I like and then I look for top players who played it, not the other way around.

As an enthusiastic student of the Dutch Defense I think I see a hole in your repertoire.

QGD

Hehe, agreed. I haven't quite decided on that yet. I've played the dutch myself and I'm thinking of using an anti-dutch system maybe or the one Cox suggests (and even Kindermann if I remember it correctly).

I've tried this with karpov for example but he just doesn't play the same stuff all the time. Not only that; Sometimes I have no clue why a move is better then another one. With a book I get the reasons for the moves aswell. Problem is that every line one might be intrested in might not have a book or is spread out on several.

Yeah it's pretty good but I still would like a more detailed reasons behind moves and opening lines like in James Vigus - Play the Slav or in Jovanka Houskas - Play the Caro-Kann. John Cox sometimes just concludes "All GMs say this line is the best, so that's what I say" instead of explaining or trying to explain the idea why it is better then something else.