I suggest you practice your tactics a lot and actually make a point of playing very sharp positions. If you avoid your weaknesses they will only become more of a problem. Take the bull by the horns!
Good, Positional Opening for Black against e4 and d4?
Sort:
Ignore what the last poster said. You can play incredibly tactically from any opening. You can find tactical continuations at any point in the game. Playing "tactical" openings means that you're stuck looking for opening traps and such from move 1. Get developed, then attack.
As far as good recommendations...the French has a huge amount of bite. Against players rated 1000-1400 I'm a pawn up about 50% of the time by move 10. Against best play it's strategic with a chance for attacks on either side.
Depending on your level you'll see less 1 D4's, so I'd go with the queen's gambit declined. The main reason is that you don't want to spend an incredible amount of time on d4 and until you have to. And the play is very, very simple in it.
Well, to fight the exchange you can choose to play Be7 first or there's the good option of the Semi Tarrasch with Ne7. There are some good videos on chess.com about it.
Or, just learn the mainline exchange from Black's point of view. Pick any opening, you're going to have some continuation you face that's going to require more care and puts you in the hot seat.
wtih semi slav and petrov you should lose close to 0% of the time
Jun 25, 2010
0
#6
Without further information, I would suggest you try 1.d4 d5 and the QGD and 1.e4 e5 and play main lines from here.
That's if you're looking for long-term improvement. If you'd rather go for a quick fix, then something like Firebrand's suggestion, coupled with 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 is a good choice.
But your problem is probably more a question of tactical awareness and focus when picking your moves 
Given your rating, I think you need to go do at least 1000 tactics puzzles. Until you do that, there's no reason for you to know the name of any opening, let alone how to play it properly.
thankssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
for your valuable info., best regards
Conzipe wrote:
There is quite a lot of good positional variations you can play against e4 and d4, I have listed some of them under this. The rest really depends a bit on your taste.
Against e4:
Caro-kann
This is really the first thing which poped into my mind while reading your post. Black gets a very solid, closed/half-open game in the caro. Also there's not a tremendous amount of theory you need to learn. Works very well togheter with the slav defense (enables you to play 1...c6 against basically anything white throws at you).
Double kingpawn
Can be very positional but the positions arising are usually much more open than in the caro-kann and you also have to be ready for some crazy attacking lines like the kings gambit (most of these are unsound and refutable). The theory varies depending on which variation you play (usually quite theoretical). This defence works pretty well with QGA.
Sicilian kan/taimanov
Is a lot sharper than the caro-kann and leads to an open but solid position for black. The theory aren't so huge in these lines since it's more about understanding key ideas.
Against d4:
Here you really have a tremendous amount of options since 1. d4 is a more positionally based opening in general.
I don't think good positional defenses against 1. e4 and 1. d4 exist at the sub-1400 level.
I mean, seriously, Masters can roll 1900s and 2000s easy with the seemingly most boring and passive openings out there, i.e. Four Knights Openings, Guioco Pianissimo, and stuff like that.
And those 1600-2000 players will obviously spot the pawns and pieces en prise in practically any opening played by someone rated hundreds of points lower.
I agree with the other posters, take the bull by the horns! A focus on openings will be more of a problem than a solution.
eaglex wrote:
with semi slav and petrov you should lose close to 0% of the time
This can't be right...there's no way those two openings are that good that "you should lose close to 0% of the time". Alexandra Kosteniuk loves the Petrov (Petroff) so I know it a little from her games; otherwise those (2) would be the best openings to use and would be the most popular and I don't thing they are (I could be wrong).
Practically every defense to 1. e4 and 1. d4 gives a higher winning percentage to White, so the losing chances for Black with any opening would be closer to 20-30% rather than 0%. Even a crazy opening like 1. Na3 or something gives White substantial winning chances, especially against a sub-1400 player.
I don't think the Petrov and Semi-Slav are the most intuitive openings to play for beginners.
The Petrov involves complex tactics in the opening, unless you want to opt out with some Steinitz/Four Knights-looking type of position. But even then, you will still get blown out by someone whose 200+ points above you. Just because someone like Kosteniuk uses it well, and a guy like Kramnik has turned the Russian Defense into a drawing machine, doesn't mean the beginner will be able to thrive with it.
The Semi-Slav is very counter-intuitive because while it starts out as a Classical struggle with the center with d5 being backed up by e6 and c6, the middle game completely cedes the center to White in exchange for hypermodern flank possibilities. Plus any more experienced player will know much more of the reams and reams of theory that an opening like the Semi-Slav has much better than a beginner. I think the Slav and Semi-Slav are some of the most sound, if not the most sound, defenses to d4, but there is just so much theory behind it.
Jun 25, 2010
0
#12
I agree with ModernCalvin here. Though you may play whatever you fancy, I would certainly not recommend Petrov or Semi-Slav to a beginner 
Conzipe wrote:
FirebrandX wrote:
I also suggest the Caro-Kann, however, it does not resemble anything like a Slav defense other than the coincidental c6 move. You're better off playing a QGD system where you play d5-e6-Nf6 and Be7 if possible.
QGD is a decent recommendation but it's almost on the verge on being "to defensive" and in particular most players seems to fear the exchange variation which is a very though line for black but very easy to play for white.
Yeah, I'm a positional player, but I still think the QGD is a bit unnecessarily passive and white has many, many safe ways to try to get a nagging slight advantage. I would love to be on the white side of the QGD, but the black side is quite passive. Some more solid lines of the slav, like the ones with an early ...dxc4 and development of bishops to f5 and b4, or the one with the bishop on d6 preparing ...e5 at some point are reliable and they give black decent piece activity, kind of like in a QGA but different, and with the QGA (which I am interested in as well) white can always almost force a draw if he's feeling unimaginative in the main line 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 e3 e6 5 Bxc4 c5 6 dxc5 or something like it, which is very symetrical (if you thought the exchange variation of the french was dull [but personally I think there is ample opportunity for black to try to outplay his opponent] this takes it to an extreme level), though I don't know how many players as white would want to be that dull, but you still have to be aware of it as it can be extremely hard to get winning chances in that line.
Elubas wrote:Some more solid lines of the slav, like the ones with an early ...dxc4 and development of bishops to f5 and b4, or the one with the bishop on d6 preparing ...e5 at some point are reliable and they give black decent piece activity, kind of like in a QGA but different, and with the QGA (which I am interested in as well) white can always almost force a draw if he's feeling unimaginative in the main line 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 e3 e6 5 Bxc4 c5 6 dxc5 or something like it, which is very symetrical (if you thought the exchange variation of the french was dull [but personally I think there is ample opportunity for black to try to outplay his opponent] this takes it to an extreme level), though I don't know how many players as white would want to be that dull, but you still have to be aware of it as it can be extremely hard to get winning chances in that line.
That's one sentence!
I agree with the symmetrical approach (1.d4 d5 // 1.e4 e5) where your opening play is straight forward - hold your share of the center, develop your pieces, get your King to safety, avoid creating weaknesses/targets in your pawn structure.
lol, me and my run ons, sorry.
So you want a more solid opening?
I would suggest QGD or classical slav.
There are lots of more interesting and active lines in the QGD if you find the orthodox too boring. Lines like the Ragozin or Vienna are tons of fun. Still, I would recommend the Tartakover variation to a beginner.
Still, you can't just blanketly reference the QGD to a beginner to improve their 1. d4 skills, because intermediate and advanced players are going to throw all sorts of crazy things at you like the Colle and Torre Attack on a regular basis. One of my friends here plays the KID with 1. d4 as his opening of choice. Plus even subtle shifts in strategy like the Catalan are going to throw you for a loop.
You may hope for the QGD, much like a 1. e4 e5 player is secretly hoping for whatever opening he is best at defending, i.e. Spanish, Italian, Scotch, Russian, etc., but you'll only get it maybe 50% of the time.
I'm very ignorant about the ragozin, but is it not just a nimzo indian with black somewhat prematurely commited to d5?
Doesn't everything look sort of similar to a Nimzo-Indian anyway? Beginners seem to hate e7 and g7 for some reason, or maybe it's just more fun to threatened someone with the possibility of doubled pawns?
ModernCalvin wrote:
Still, you can't just blanketly reference the QGD to a beginner to improve their 1. d4 skills, because intermediate and advanced players are going to throw all sorts of crazy things at you like the Colle and Torre Attack on a regular basis. One of my friends here plays the KID with 1. d4 as his opening of choice. Plus even subtle shifts in strategy like the Catalan are going to throw you for a loop.
You may hope for the QGD, much like a 1. e4 e5 player is secretly hoping for whatever opening he is best at defending, i.e. Spanish, Italian, Scotch, Russian, etc., but you'll only get it maybe 50% of the time.
This doesn't really hold with the QGD.
Against virtually any or all of the "d4 specials", the standard QGD setup, with an early c5 break, is either mainline, or rock solid alternative. Against the Colle, the Torre, the Pseudo-Tromp, the London, the Stonewall, and the Catalan, 1...d5, and either 2...e6, 3...Nf6 or 2...Nf6, 3...e6 leads to a very playable game for black.
Even against the BDG, 1...d5, 2...e6 is mainline. Of course, it's a mainline French, but whatever, still very solid and very playable.
Almost all of my white opponents play d4, and I lose 80% of the time. I lose 70% of the time against e4. I have two problems. First, I'm not very tactical; I have lost too many brain cells to think seven moves ahead against 1400 players. Secondly, I am A.D.D. with my black openings. I am not ascertive enough to stick with my opening (depending on their opening move); instead I play a haphazard defensive opening which leads to a muddled middle game swap meet.
As I have committed to retooling my game, even at the cost of a temporary points drop, I have decided to learn and stick with one opening against d4 and one against e4. Any suggestions as to which I should study like crazy? And why that one versus something else?
Thank you, AquiredTaste