QGD Lasker, Ragozin, Tarrasch, or Nimzo Indian?

I've been playing the Chigorin for years and am looking to switch to something a bit more solid. I'm 1900 USCF. I used to play stuff that was typically more tactical but have since switched to more positional openings for various reasons.

I've been enjoying the d3 Ruy Lopez and Bb5 Sicilians as white and the Breyer as black. For fighting the Queen's Gambit I've been using the Lasker which I really like except for some of the exchange lines which are really annoying. I general I like solid classical openings, but maybe not Berlin Defense level solid, especially when the queens are traded early and I'm defending an inferior pawn structure. I'm thinking of trying out the Nimzo to avoid the more annoying lines, but my fear is that it might prove to be too much work to learn such a complicated opening especially as a class player. I'm also considering the Ragozin and meeting 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 with 3...Bb4. Or maybe the Tarrasch Defense. Any suggestions?

The Ragozin is the most complicated QGD line. There's also positions where White can avoid playing Nc3 and then you have to play ...dxc4 at some point which is also complicated.

I personally don't like the Nimzo because it doesn't work against 3.Nf3 and I refuse to learn two openings against 1.d4 or any other move for that matter. This might be fine for professionals but not me.

Lasker is supposed to be the simplest and Tarrasch is in between I guess. I don't like the Tarrasch because of 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cd ed 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.dc which just leads to an endgame where White gets the bishop pair for free.

Semi Tarrasch.

I'm just about your exact strength and I have some strong similarities in repertoire to yours. I have always played Bb5 Sicilians and d3 Spanish lines, and even the Breyer (although no longer). There's a very specific problem I have with the Breyer which is very deep in theory, and also arguable, but also idk if I enjoy those positions. 

Against 1. d4 I have often played the Classical Slav. There is one annoying line which is 6. Ne5. Against this I've played in some games 6...Nbd7 7. Nxc4 Qc7 which is playable but unfortunately the main lines are extremely dangerous for black and against anyone over 2200 or so it's hardly playable because the position becomes much easier to play for white than black. However, there are a lot of other interesting lines against 6. Ne5, including 6...Na6, or 6...Nbd7 7. Nxc4 Nb6, and if you find one that suits you then you will be in great shape. The 6. e3 lines are very easy to learn and very quiet, yet logical. Against 4. e3 you can play either Bf5 or Bg4 and be fine. 

If I had to choose from the openings you listed I would play the Nimzo and more specifically I would play the Tabiya lines with dxc4.

All opening systems of course are fine and have there advantages and disadvantages.

• Nimzo combined with something for Nf3 (bogo/queensindian or any queensgambit) is probably the most interesting approach both in equality and in generating your own changes. Downside if you need to study a lot.
• Queensgambit Lasker is theoretically fine although if white does not want to play ball you wont win against an equalish opponent. Also by using the d5/e6/Nf6 move order you open yourself up to the queensgambit declined exchange  with Ne2. In these lines white currently has a slight edge. Third and certainly not least the QGD with Bf4 lines are quite serious and white has decent changes for an advantage in these lines. In total i think you can be happy if you get the Lasker on the board in 25% of your black games. The rest will be exchange, Bf4 or Catalan
• Tarrasch is the least amount of theory especially because in both the Nimzo in the QGD you also need a weapon against the Catalan. You also get is on the board alot because it is hard to avoid as white. However .. against prepared white opponents it is hard to gain equality and often white can try to push for a win with hardly any risk (if white is not prepared that happens often against the Tarrasch you equalize easy and retain good changes for a win)

My recommendation - if you want to spend time Nimzo/Something/Catalan if you dont want to spend time Tarrasch

1.d4 d5 2c4 e6 3Nc3 Bb4 is suprisingly playable, at least for an old-school player like me. The only transpostion to Nimzo don't really like is 4a3 BxNch 5pxB Nf6 especially when white continues 5pxp pxp. In the samisch would prefer that white can't exchange off the weakling c-pawn. Objectively this line could be fine for black though. 

For an ambitous black player having d5 played early can be an advantage because against lamer white tries, black can play d5xc4 and hold onto pawn. For example, the more popular lines for white in 4Qc2 Nimzo can be avoided.

I agree that the Ragozin/Vienna deserves respect. But the most complicated QGD line in my opinion is the Botvinnik/Moscow systems. There are some who will argue that it's a Slav, but I consider the Slav to be part of the QG complex and the Botvinnik is a prime example of why this is true. It can be reached by either 2....c6 or 2...e6 lines. The Botvinnik and Moscow are sister openings.

Regarding the Lasker, theoretically White doesn't get much with best play. But there's still plenty of room for discovery and practical play.

If you dont get anything against the Lasker QGD why the hell do people play 1.d4?

What would you recommend? If a super GM wants to draw, it's really hard to stop them. Just ask Carlsen. That's why he played so many London system games against Karjakin.

When properly played, these days white isn't supposed to get anything in any opening. That's why so many are avoiding big theoretical fights (well, and they don't want to test their opponent's computer) and aiming for very long games where they might milk some minimal amount of imbalance.

A few people have been playing the Ragozin against me recently, seems ok of not very ambitious

Personally I like the triangle stuff at club level as black can often take the c pawn and keep it as white often does not know the theory well enough on winning it back, or have the skills to maximise compensation when it turns into a sac

I typed a lot but now it s all gone. A pitty. A played the Nimzo with a lot of pleasure. I have the book of Raymaond Keene Winning with the Nimzo Indian with is maybe old but still usefull I think. But also a lot of the Nimzo is on line and in new books. even Jan gustavson switzt recenly to the Nimzo indian and enjoys it.

White can play after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Bb4 a lot of moves.

as there are 4.Qc2 Cappablanca  4.e3 main line.  4.Nf3 4.f3 4.Qb3 4.a3 and 4.g3 and even 4.Bd2 although never played is possible.

On all this lines you have good replies. With 4.Qc2 white wants to play 5.a3 and after Bxc3 take back with the Queen to avoids double pawns.

On 4.e3 white wants usely to play or 4.Bd3 and then 5.Ne2 or 4.Ne2 at ones. also to aviod double pawns. On this last line you can play 4...d5 and swits to a Queens gambit with a strange white Knight position.  4.Nf3 and 4.a3 I consider as not so dangerous.  You should learn something about the Capablanca variaton the closed and open Saemsich the 4.e3 lines and about the Hubner systems. 4.Bg5 is also not so dangerous.

One problem with Nimzo is lots of white players, including myself play 1.d4 2.Nf3 3. g3   or similar, delaying c4 which is a problem for the Nimzo player, although they can try to go for a Queens Indian type structure but not a normal version

Of course you can not Always play the Nimzo Indian. If white plays  1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3  you can play the Queens Indian with 3...b6. After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3  you can play the Catalan with 3...d5   And against 1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 Trompovski also you get no Nimzo. Then also against 1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 ( or even 2.Bf4 )  you will get no Nimzo Indian.

My self I play Nimzo Queen Indian Catalan and Tromposki with black and also the London system. The Nimzo is only after 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 and then 3.Nc3 

I have no experience on the Black side of the QGD, but from playing the exchange variation (f3/Nge2/e4) plan, along with the Catalan, it seems to me that the positions are generally more enjoyable for White, and can be hard to win with Black if white doesn't push too hard (though of course at our level plenty of mistakes are made, and anything is possible).

As a 1.d4 player, the Nimzo probably gives me more trouble than any other major defense to 1.d4. The positions are so flexible that it can be hard to remember theory and key ideas, and black has plenty of resources within each major line, so if one idea gives you trouble it is easy to switch to another within the same opening. I played the Nimzo with Black a little bit a while ago, and consider taking it up again, but like you and others have said, it is a lot of work for a club player and White has plenty of ways to avoid it, so I am hesitant.

However, from the choices given, I would choose the Nimzo and just try to buckle down with some good resources for black to get to grips with the theory and myriad of possible positions, while remembering that it is OK to not know it 100% because below master level your opponents are also going to be confused much of the time. Yes, white can avoid it, but against 3.g3 or 3.Nf3 you can play the Bogo Indian or Modern Benoni, both good openings (one more solid, the other sharp) which are convenient because they avoid mainline Catalan theory, which seems pretty nice for White in most lines. The Nimzo/Benoni combo is particularly nice IMO because when you play the Benoni, you will have avoided White's most dangerous options (which require an early f4) because White's knight will already be on f3.

Just my two cents.

The 5. Ne2 lines are practical, but also not theoretically challenging. I've played them myself very often, since when I played d4 I experimented with those lines. It's interesting but also absolutely nothing for black to fear objectively.

I think black does fine with the 0-0 and Re8 variations, for example. 

Also I don't know how you figure the mainline Semi-Slav transposes to a QGD...that's not going to be the case in almost any line, let alone "normally" as you say...

Slav and QGD are both draws with best play I'm sure. Which is practically better for tournaments? I'd argue the Slav, but I have a bias.

Ne5 is a more dangerous move than e3 IMO. The only lines after e3 which are at all annoying are lines in which white plays quickly Nh4.

Personally black side of queens gambit bores me rigid, but each to their own.

Actually think the Tarrach is under rated at club level.   You get all the pieces out without too much trouble and have an active position, that half the battle at below master level.   Plus you can study how to play the isolated pawn positions and although in theory you may have a slight dissadvantage, in practice with good piece activity and practive of playing the positions you will do well.

You can also learn that Tarrash gambit  the Shara or whatever it called, that you can wheel out when feeling aggresive.

The great thing about the tarrach is you can play the moves against all of whites setups including the london etc and the isoolated pawn structures also occur in other openings which will help your overall chess.   Collins has a book out on it that is quite informative