What opening should I play against 1.d4?

Currently 1200 elo, I mostly play the King's Indian but it doesn't work that well. I heard that there's the dutch, nimso indian and grunfield. Which one works well from beginner to master level?

Nimzo-Indian and Bogo-Indian are probably the best against d4 if you want to play an Indian Game, but you could also play the QGD, Slav, or QGA.

@1

"Currently 1200 elo" ++ Then do not worry about openings.
You do not win or lose because of the opening, but because of tactical mistakes.

"I mostly play the King's Indian but it doesn't work that well."
++ At top grandmaster level the King's Indian Defense is considered slightly unsound because of the Bayonet Attack, but at your level that should not matter.

"I heard that there's the dutch"
++ Dutch is even less sound than the King's Indian Defense. 1...f5 is no developing move and it weakens the diagonal a2-g8 to your king. Again, at your level that should not matter.

"nimso indian" ++ Yes Nimzovich Indian Defense and Queen's Indian Defense are solid.

"and grunfield"
++ Yes, Grünfeld Indian Defense is solid, but hard to play as black: there is no room for error.

"Which one works well from beginner to master level?" ++ Simplest and best is 1 d4 d5.

Keep in mind: each time you switch openings, you lose more, not less.
It takes time and losses to accumulate experience.

Tradeoffs of some of the options as I see it:

- KID / Grunfeld setups: Would not recommend for beginners... to play well requires alot of theory, and as hypermodern openings these give white a big space advantage. The lines are very sharp - but often in a way that cuts against black. With the KID you really have to recognize complex attacking patterns to punish the opponent - something a beginner isn't going to recognize... and with the Grunfeld you've gotta know theory very deep, especially to manage the d pawn advances, something a beginner won't know. So I recommend you just avoid these

- Queens Gambit Declined: There's alot of history behind this opening, it follows all the classical chess principles and it was the standard way to play chess during the classical era. It's a very good opening for beginners since it will teach them the classical chess principles. As you climb in elo one problem I have with it is the theory is very well known and common - if you look statistically most people end up playing this in response to d4, it's like over half of players. And there aren't tons of opportunities to branch out, especially in certain variations like the exchange. So it's just going to be a very typical game for the opponent... I'm also not that satisfied with blacks options for circumventing or handling the exchange. Though there have been some advancements here recently with b4 setups... I'm not convinced yet. But still, don't be deterred from playing the lines, I think knowing these lines is just an essential part of d4 education since it's the most standard way of responding to d4. And these lines are played at GM level, so it's not like these are fatal flaws. I suppose I just don't like being so predictable as a club player.

- Nimzo / QID or Bogo: I'm actually not a fan of these openings because the number of viable moves white can play explodes very quickly, and it requires a ton of theory to play the lines correctly. This is because there are early complications from pressuring white with the bishops, combined with the fact you're refraining from committing to early pawn moves. Part of this is just personal preference, if you're not a player who aspires to play the opening in a precise and algorithmic way this may not be an issue, and the nimzo in particular applies very good pressure to white and usually leads to good positions for black. The Nimzo is the strongest line here, some people pair it with other openings like the Ragozin or Vienna, but QID I think is the most obvious choice. If you're someone who likes to play intuitively I think it's a fine option... for a pro player I think the lines are also fine because they have the time. But for me, a club player who wants to play sharply and master the opening, I would rather not put this amount of time / effort into learning theory. I also feel the nimzo is just a little bit too common for my tastes. Anyway, similar things are often said about the Ruy Lopez, the Nimzo is kind of like the Ruy Lopez of d4.

- Slav / Semi-Slav: It's a very rich opening, the theory does go very deep (especially the semi-slav theory) and you should know it, since a wrong move can be punishing for black... in the semi-slav you can get backed up and find yourself with no counterplay, and in the slav you'll find white has alot of midgame initiative. But if you know the theory and play precisely it'll be okay, and the positions are very unique. The Slav in particular puts alot of pressure on white early, white needs to play sharply to regain his pawn, so I really like these lines for club players. The Semi-slav can result in positional games or some of the sharpest most chaotic games in chess. There are many sidelines and deviations throughout which black can choose to enter... for example you can play early slav gambits, you can play chameleon, you can play the triangle system and avoid the exchange, within the exchange there are ways of spicing things up... Overall Black is often the one that gets to decide the nature of the position, which is another big plus for club players. The positions are also very unique. For beginners I'd generally recommend sticking with the slav and maybe the semi-slav meran lines if they play the quiet slav. Good system overall, if you're someone who likes playing theoretically and going into strange / interesting variations that you've prepared this is a great opening.

- albin countergambit: below 2000 elo if you really just want something simple where you don't have to learn a ton of theory and will just beat people I would recommend this line... this has the highest winrate against d4 at low elo levels.

- Queens Gambit Accepted: Very underestimated opening... the board opens up early and you often have more piece play, it's actually a fighting opening. It's considered sound at the highest level, it's also benefited alot from recent discoveries by engines. You enter the position early on, you can also transpose the zuckertort and e3 setups into it as well, so this opening is very good at getting the opponent into your theory / bypassing whatever they might have prepared. There are many surprisingly sharp and punishing deviations against most of whites moves. If you look at the QGA winrates you'll find some of the best winrates against d4. Why exactly this is - I think part of it is that non-QGA players don't realize just how serious of a line this is... I think that even when they do prepare something against it they don't go deep enough, they may go like 8 moves deep, but they don't take it as seriously as their main lines. That's a mistake because this isn't a sideline, it's a completely solid opening that you have to handle with the same degree of seriousness as any main line. I also think people underestimate how sharp and punishing it is for white, like I said it's a fighting opening. All around I think the QGA is a great option and as a club player it's what I play personally. 

- Tarrasch: This is another underrated and underplayed defense. It's a very sharp fighting IQP position, black has good initiative, generally a good way to play at club level. Recent innovations in the theory such as the Dubov Tarrasch have also made it more viable at higher levels. I played this for a while, in my experience it was very rare that white had any idea how to play these positions. If white knows how to handle it play can get a little objectively difficult, but it's really not bad and the positions are always very dynamic / sharp to where it compensates for that... You can also play it against the English / Reti. Usually you combine it with the semi-tarrasch, so you only really need a line against the catalan. The semi-tarrasch is kind of a similar story, it can be a sharp IQP position, but it can also be drawish depending on what you want. Overall for serious attacking players who want something viable as they climb in the ranks I think this is one of the best options.

EDIT: someone PMd me asking my opinion on a few other openings:

I definitely would not recommend the Benoni... it's pretty easy to beat. Main advantage to it would be that people rarely study the lines, but there's a reason for that - it's just very hard for black to play, black has to play very passively for a long time / slowly arrange his pieces perfectly to where he can finally break out. Whites play is pretty simple - reinforce d5, play a4, rotate your kings knight over to the queenside if possible ... put your darksquare bishop on the diagonal eyeing the d6 pawn... push the f pawn. That's pretty much all you need to know to fight against the benoni. I haven't even studied the lines but always get an advantage in the opening when I face it.

Benko - much better way to play c5, good winrates even at higher levels and slow time controls, gives you attacking opportunities / a dynamic game, not really that common ... there's alot going for the benko. Main issue is if they know the king walk line it can start to get more formulaic and difficult, but there are also ways of deviating from the main lines if you prefer, and you still have chances / can focus on that line very carefully and master it. Generally what you get is just strong attacking initiative all the way into the endgame. So yeah I think I'd recommend the benko.

Dutch (1... f5) - There are far too many ways white can throw the game into complete chaos, and not the good kind of chaos, the kind where you're on the back foot struggling to hang on. White has 6 or so responses, all of which can result in that. Meanwhile the most standard option, the fiancetto line, black may actually struggle the most to equalize against. The main reasons to play the dutch are:

a) since it makes the game very dynamic it's not likely to result in a draw. Alot of people will play it against lower rated players to force a win with black. This may make sense at higher elo in tournament settings... it doesn't make sense online, people rarely draw online. And it doesn't make sense at beginner or club level, where draws are rare and where you'd rather just play 1 main defense.

b) it could make sense if you mainly just want to throw the opponent off, since very few people play it... but it's a giant opening, you will need to learn alot of theory, and you're learning theory basically to just survive. Meanwhile the weakened f pawn often means you still struggle throughout the mid / late game, even if you played the opening perfectly... for all the effort I don't think it's worth it. 
If I really wanted to throw the opponent off this badly I'd probably look for another way.

The dutch is fun due to all the complex chaos, but I don't think it's sound and I really wouldn't recommend it unless you just want to have fun.

english defense: this does deserve mention. You can play this against the 3. Nc3 setup, and play something else like the QID, dutch, or a nimzo transposition against the 3. Nf3 setup. Though personally I'm not a huge fan of the dutch, here at least your opponent has played c4 and you've avoided alot of the early pressure against the dutch. But personally I'd probably go for a nimzo transposition. Main issue I have with this is you really need to open e6 > b6, and play the french defense if white responds with 2. e4. Because the e6 / b6 lines against 2. e4 are really just not that great. If you're a french defense player against e4 this is perfect and I'd recommend playing this, but if not... I think it's too much theory. However, I think this is a fantastic opening, it's very aggressive and sharp, and the lines are strange where if your opponent hasn't studied them you are going to do well. And it's quite rare too / scores well. On top of that there's alot less theory to it than the nimzo. So generally I recommend french players try this

overall the tarrasch, albin, benko, slav, and QGA lines are the ones I like... they have different pluses but they're all fighting openings which I like the idea of for club level. I think the QGD should be learned just to develop the basic understanding of chess. If I wanted to choose a serious GM-level opening to climb high I'd probably go with the semi-slav... or possibly the chameleon. As a club player I think I prefer the QGA for now, it's just so punishing and solid... If my aspirations were more casual, like never aspiring to climb above 2000, I'd go with the albin.

It was hard for me to decide between the slav / QGA / tarrasch / benko for a while... the tarrasch just required a little more attacking precision in the midgame to make use of the IQP than is my style... the benko is great but at the end of the day you are down a pawn... with the QGA there's no such issue, it is just completely solid, and it's punishing too. The slav was the closest call for me... Ultimately I decided that, while I loved the slavs early pressure, whites initiative in the midgame with the slav was more of a problem than with the QGA, and I also didn't like facing the exchange slav... and I was not completely satisfied with the lines against the quiet slav. With the QGA there's really no line I feel is problematic, even if I do run into a sharp line I already know that white isn't going to know the line.

KID/grunfeld/nimzo/QID ... meh, generally my feeling is to leave that to the pros or fischer fans.

Thanks!

The Italian Game

I play nimzo/queens indian starting from the move e6(generally hoping for a french defence transposition), sometimes spice that with delayed dutch

I like the QGA but to be honest, I don't consider it "beginner friendly". it is definitely played all the way up to GM level.

the QGD, Slav/Semi-slav are fine places to start.

Since you are already dissatisfied with the KID, I am not going to suggest any other 1...,Nf6 Indian games. the KID is probably the easiest to learn in comparison to the Modern Benoni or the Grunfeld.

The one that provides a Victory!

"What opening should I play against 1.d4?"

1...Nf6

The balance against d4 is:

A. Not to let him bore you to death.

B. Not to yield the center to him.

We play Nf6, so A is almost done.

===

Conclusion:

1.d4 Nf6

Vs. Accelerated London System (=Bf4 without Nf3): Old Indian Defense. Your King's Indian ideas can come later, and as opposed to the classical King's Indian Defense, you only need to face one setup from White in here.

Vs. The Queen's Gambit (1.d4 + 2.c4): e6 - controlling the center, aimming for d5.

1.e6

Yo bro the King's Indian is great you might just need to learn it a bit better.
I personally play the King's Indian and I found this great FULL MASTERCLASS on it on YouTube. It's really well done and it's helped me a lot. https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOaFVRf_8WkQv_RtBn59zda2ZEBAy1RG7&si=oYbDiY8i5_lQQAY2

Just so everyone knows, the Bayonet attack is a good line for white to play, but that doesn't mean it's bad for black. Here's an awesome video that covers what to do against it: https://youtu.be/cGuum1k23UI?si=X-4aAupC6_jXmBAL

If you're wondering what to play against d4, I'm highly recommending the King's Indian Defence. 
Hikaru and GothamChess once did a tier list of worst to best openings for intermediate players and the King's Indian was at the very top. Some people say "you're down space" and all that, but that doesn't really matter, because you're quickly gonna strike back in the center and if you pretty much know what you're doing you'll be fine, if not better. Some people prefer to play d5 against d4 (which I used to play myself), but I find it too dry, and it's harder to create winning chances and imbalances (especially if you're trying to beat a lower-rated opponent). One more thing I want to say is that even intermediate players don't have a clue what to play against it, and basically self-destruct.

Here's a full masterclass on it from YouTube (FOR FREE!!): https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLOaFVRf_8WkQv_RtBn59zda2ZEBAy1RG7&si=H9OB_4dGijVgDRxb

The trouble with your post there is you didn't actually mention Hikaru's logical justification for recommending the KID. He basically likes the fact it's a setup you can play against anything, and then you can just play chess... this is more of a deemphasis of the opening, really. If this anti-opening approach is the one you want to take then fine, play some system setup... if you plan on taking the opening seriously, like studying it the way you're suggesting, it's an entirely different matter. The other thing worth noting is that Hikaru put the QGD at the rank 1 position in his tier list of all openings, ahead of KID, so if you really want to take Hikaru's advice you'd actually play the QGD. And he probably did this because it teaches the classical chess principles... I agree with him on this one.

Furthermore, for every GM with an opinion there's another GM with the opposite opinion, the fact a GM feels a certain way about something is not really a conclusive argument the way you are trying to make it. I am a big fan of Hikaru, I think he actually learned chess playing the Kings Indian himself, but it's not like he's worked for a long time as a chess teacher / has a degree in teaching chess or something. If you want something more objective go look at the winrates in the KID at low level - they're not that great for black, white has like a 5-8% edge... there are worse but there are also much better, players aren't crumbling as you describe. The issue with the KID as I see it is you need to play very sharp attacking moves, you have to capitalize on the tactical opportunities when they arise, and I don't expect players who are bad at tactics to actually manage to do that. Every hypermodern opening undermines the center, that's nothing new, but this requires subtlety and is harder to pull off than a simple straightforward classical plan where you just already occupy the center and your pieces aren't backed up. And the center doesn't always open up in the KID, either.

If you deeply study an opening and follow the theory for ~8ish moves you will probably make it work regardless, but I don't generally expect beginner level players to do that.

On another note, it looks like the person you quoted has gained 300 elo since he made this post like 6 months ago, he is now 1500.

First of all I just double checked and I didn't see any Queen's Gambit Declined opening on Hikaru's tier list, not quite sure where you saw that.
I agree, d5 is a perfectly good option. At the end of the day it comes down to taste. Some people are more aggressive players, and some are more solid. Some people are more positional, and some are more tactical. If you really don't know what you want to play, just go watch a video or two on each one you're trying to decide between, and go play some unrated Rapid games. Also, it's not ideal to play 2 opening against the same thing, but rather to play one and master it. For example, playing the Nimzo-Indian, AND the King's Indian against d4. Just pick one.

When he gets to the Queens Gambit tile he states explicitly that he's talking about the QGD, not the QGA... while he arranges the QGD position on the board... (assuming you know what position we're talking about). It's that tile in the rank 1 spot that says "Queens Gambit" on it.

We come to the end... Intermediate Opening Tier List: The End (youtube.com)

Against 1. d4 the nimzo indian must be complimented by another opening, such as the QID or the vienna or ragozin.

It's interesting listening to a 1200 give advice on how to get good at the game - good players pretty much always at least test out a variety of openings before settling on a main one. Partly because this just improves general understanding and pattern recognition. For example, you ought to know classical chess principles - that's why Hikaru recommended the QGD.

When White plays 1.d4 respond with 1. .. e6 and take him into the French, and when he declines continue with the Classical Dutch. White is almost always not expecting this.

Yes, studying multiple openings, even if you don't play them is a good thing. Particularly d4 openings they are full of transposition. You need at least a rudimentary understanding to play positions that may end up outside of your familiarity.