what's the best against 1.d4?

Hello,

i notice that i don't feel comfortable when i'm playing black and  the game starts with 1.d4. Which opening do you think it's the best against this move?

i'm a beginner player (about 1500 in FICS, just to give you an idea)

I'd like to use your advices to start studying (a little more deeply) openings.

thank you for your help

Brandobras

i'm using modern defenses against queen's pawn opening.(g6)

There are lots of sound responses to d4. What you pick should depend on what sort of game you like to play. I like an exciting, attacking game with lots of imbalances, so I like to play the Dutch (f5). Probably the most popular current reply to d4 is the Slav or Semi-Slav. Check this out on openings explorer and see if it suits your style. It's a good one to learn anyway since it is played so frequently.

i think the best to play against d4 is the nimzo-indian....little theory and a clear plan make it great for beginners and masters alike-check out Andrew Martin`s great chessbase dvd,it will show how good the opening can be.

Personally I like playing either 1.... d5 or the Benko gambit if I'm allowed. Playing 1 d4 as white the defenses I most dislike seeing from the white side are the Dutch (1.... f5), the Albin counter gambit (1 d4 d5   2 c4 e5) or the Queens Gambit Accepted ( 1 d4 d5 2 c4 dxc4). One thing I would say is that you should never pick the same opening to play all the time. Very soon people will know what you like playing and will have a plan. Watch the grandmasters and see how many different openings they play. Pick a couple of openings you enjoy playing and rotate them.

 I would disagree with you. (Respectfully :) Grandmasters can play many openings, because they know and understand each of them very well. When playing against most players at a sub-master level, as long as your playing your opening correctly, it really should not matter what plan your opponent has. It doesn't really make sense to use a second opening if you have not mastered the first opening, and I don't think anyone (non-GM) has mastered anything. Example, I am very competant with the KID, but I still screw some things up all the time and am constantly growing my knowledge in the KID. Reminds of the old cliche, "Jack of all trades, master of none." 

Currently, the most popular defense is probably the Semi-Slav going something like this for Black:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. Nc3 c6 (This is the first distinguishing feature of the Semi-Slav: forming a triangular pawn shape).

5. e3 Be7 6. Be2 0-0 7. 0-0 dxc4 (Black tries to gain a little tempo at the cost of giving up the center).

8. Bxc4 b5 9. Bd3 a6 (forming a new triangular pawn shape).

10. e4 Nd7 (White now has control of the majority of the center, but Black's pieces are well developed and he has no holes in his defense).

Another popular reply to 1. d4 is the Nimzo-Indian, which goes something like this:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4 (Instead of supporting d5 with c6, Black pins the Knight with his dark Bishop, which is usually traded away). This is very popular at almost all levels of play because Black can castle early and start countering pretty early. The weakness in this defense is that often times White ends up with the Bishop pair. However, Black can use this to his advantage by locking up the pawn structure in the middle game so he can take advantage of his Knights.

Finally, the Tartakower Defense is also very solid against the 1. d4 and goes as follows:

1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 (following the lines of a traditional Queen's Gambit Declined).

3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 Be7 (looks pretty passive in contrast with the Nimzo-Indian, but nothing wrong with this).

5. Bg5 h6 6. Bh4 0-0 7. e3 Nd7 8. Be2 b6 9. 0-0 Bb7

(Again, this defense is a little passive, but Black develops his pieces well, and White has no immediate attack due to Black's rock-solid position).

 We'll have to agree to disagree. If I know an opponent always plays the same opening then if I have a system I enjoy playing against it I will do so and if I don't I will play something completely different to take them out of their preparation. I enjoy playing all sorts of openings and would find it very boring to play the same opening game after game. Variety is the spice of life !!

Top players tend to have a smaller repertoire and they dont mind playing the same openings over and over if it brings them the desired results. They dont care that their opponents may be prepared for them as they figure they are equally well prepared or even better prepared. Many tried to prepare for the najdorf sicilian when facing Fischer and they still lost because Fischer knew even more than them. Larsen once said that to play either side of the najdorf with Fischer was sheer madness because he knew the positions so well and had worked on them so much. Look at the recent match between Anand and Kramnik. There were not a lot of different openings played.

Indeed. Anand and Kramnik played a lot of Semi-Slav and Nimzo-Indian. 

I play the Benoni defense against 1.d4:

The d6 pawn is usually pretty weak, but I believe black gets compensation because of his queenside pawn superiority. Also, the king is decently well protected, by the fianchettoed bishop. The variation above is the sharpest one for white, there are some quieter ones too, though.

I always play the nimzo-indian but I haven't kept track of wins and losses in the particular opening, so I don't know if it's the best for me or where the weak spots are?

I don't play it much anymore myself, but I would also recommend the Nimzo-Indian/Queen's Indian complex as the best response to 1.d4 for new players.  Solid and active.

Like you, I've often struggled with defending against 1.d4

The hypermodern defenses, Kings Indian, Nimzo Indian, etc are full of traps if aren't familar with all the variations. Try the Queen Gambit Declined. 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6. This won't lead to the most exciting game in the world, but then again you aren't as likely to get overrun in the center as quickly as often happens in the Indian defenses. The key is freeing the Queen's bishop early on. Another good opening to try is the Slav. It's favored by many grandmasters because it has a good balance of defense and offensive oppurtunitie

And I agree as well.  I play the Dutch, and there are various arguments over what is appropriate.

I view opening theory as follows - let's take the Sicilian. 

White begins with 1. e4, and seeing 1...c5, he plays the popular Open variation with 2. Nf3.  Black has many choices, but White, having studied the dips in the openings, knows which path to take.  Which means that he has to study the opening.

If you play a particular opening, you must understand the dips of it.  If you don't, then truthfully it isn't reliable enough to venture. 

I have read (going back to the main issue) that 1. Nf3 f5 can be met with 2. d3! (with an exclam) but instead of playing a traditional Dutch line, I venture into something that looks more like a Latvian Gambit position, respecting White's move order and playing something that gives Black practical chances. 

If we began to discuss the Dutch (1. d4 f5) and I was to tell you solid reasons to try this defense, I would try to start with some practical understanding of the position.

After 1. d4 f5, Black has laid a strong claim to the e4 square, in a stronger fashion than in many other openings.  Plus, he has began to create a kingside initiative, which can possibly result in a middlegame pawnstorm on White's king if he castles kingside.  Plus, Black does not have to reposition his knight like he does in the King's Indian or the Nimzo-Indian to launch the f-pawn.  For instance, 1. d4 f5 2. c4 Nf6 and the f-pawn is already into play, and h5 is covered from any funny tactics on the h5-e8 diagonal by the knight.

Now, Black has options to try.  Depending on your style, you may want to look into a few different lines.  Black can use the Stonewall (with a pawn structure development like the Semi-Slav, but with different middlegame plans - Black intends to keep a foothold in the center and attack normally on the kingside), the Classical idea with pawns on e6 and d6, preparing a kingside pawn duo with attacking chances, the Leningrad where he places his king bishop on the a1-h8 diagonal (kind of like King's Indian ideas in many structures, but can also go into totally different paths as well) and the queenside fianchetto, which is similar to the Nimzo-Indian, except Black has already achieved the desired foothold on e4.

There are various gambits White can play, but with some study, they are nothing to fear.  Learning one good neutralizer against each gambit will give you a good start.

If you want an opening that gives you winning chances against 1. d4, let's talk about the Dutch.  I will send you an invite to our group, the Dynamic Dutch Defense.  We have forums dedicated to different approaches White plays and how to handle them!

uhurm

I play the Kings Indian Defense, or the Grunfeld.

Well you've read a lot of opinions on how to meet 1d4, and it's interesting to see other comments debate a "variety" repertoire vs. a narrow repertoire. Personally, I side with the "narrow" school of thought. My experience has been that a narrow repertoire may on the surface seem boring and repetitive, but sticking with an opening for awhile will lead to a deep understanding that will allow you to develop an advantage as early as the opening phase against less prepared opponents.

Even if the first couple dozen moves of a game feel "routine", at some point you and your opponent will enter territory as unique as a fingerprint. And for what it's worth, I know that GM Yasser Seirawan says when you find an opening suitable to your style, you should stick with it for at least a year so you can become familiar with all its nuances.

As far as recommendations go, if you like to counterattack early on against 1d4, I recommend exploring the Modern Benoni, or the Benko Gambit, but be prepared to transpose into the English white declines the offer.

These recommendations like Modern Benoni or Grunfeld... poor ideas, IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I think they're fine openings -- I play them myself.  But would I recommend them for a beginner?  Definitely not.  These are extremely complex, highly tactical openings.  The principles are difficult to understand, and It is very easy to get steamrolled in them if you haven't studied a lot of theory.

That is not what is called for.  You want something simple to pick up, that's going to provide for a decent position without a lot of opportunity to go wrong.  Nimzo-Indian, Dutch, Semi-Slav, even Orthodox QGD are much better choices.

I like the semi-slav myself, but play the openings you understand if you understand the why each move is played in the opening you will have much better chances to win.

I play c5 - benoni defence, or sometimes benko gambit.