Regarding the Neo-Gruenfeld/Anti-Gruenfeld or whatever you want to call it, I've had a chat with someone who should know and was told to check Kamsky's games. Using my Sherlock Holmes database it seems like this is the continuation:

1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5 4. cxd5 Nxd5 5. Qb3 Nb6 6. d4 Bg7 7. Bf4 Be6 8.Qa3 Nc6 9. e3 a5 

Seems like the trick is to delay castling. Here White has 10.Be2 or 10.Bb5 but so far Black has been doing excellently against both. 

Smyslov_Fan wrote on 01/22/11 at 20:38:39:


With the Nimzo-English, Kramnik is by far the choice topic of study. He has a significant number of games in it, and his successes/failures in the opening go to great lengths to shape how white should handle the entire variation (when he's not busy ducking into sidelines involving g3, but rather emphasis on his handling of e3 related variations - like when d4 is preferred, how to time b4, when you play Rae1 intending f4 in the near future, knowing where white is supposed to play based on black's set-up). An example of an instructive point is Kramnik-Anand, Frankfurt 1998 where b4 was too early, and black was able to equalize as a result.

In the Grunfeld - Eljanov, in particular his annotations to his games (ie: you can figure out his intended improvement on Eljanov-Shirov, Aerosvit 2008 by understanding the flaw with the move he chose in the game).

I also mentioned the Ivanchuk-Vachier Lagrave, Khanty Mansiysk 2010 game earlier, not because Ivanchuk is a frequent practicioner, but there is a lot to learn from that game. Vachier Lagrave, along with Svidler, is one of the biggest proponents of the Anglo-Grunfeld as black, so for him to get ground down with never being able to generate counterplay is significant.

The Leningrad Dutch is a great choice.  You can play it against everything except 1.e4; offers winning chances; opponents will be less prepared against it, and it is fully sound at any level below GM (and even Nakamura plays it against the best of the best).

I would recommend Kindermann's book as brilliant

Markovich wrote on 01/20/11 at 15:26:21:


An IM in my club has basically this exact repertoire and does well with it. He doesnt seem overly-concerned with the various anti-Gruenfeld tries but just learns them as openings in their own right I think. My own view is that Black is doing reasonably OK in those lines.

kylemeister wrote on 01/20/11 at 17:41:12:


I'm 100% with you, Kyle.

Markovich wrote on 01/20/11 at 15:26:21:


This reminds me of something I made a mistake with a long time ago as a black Nimzo-Indian player when faced with the prospect of using the Nimzo-English (1. Nf3 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4). The positions seemed familiar enough, solid enough, and typical enough so I figured they must be okay just like the standard Nimzo-Indian equivalent. I even collected a bunch of draws and no losses against FMs OTB in it, which reinforced my perception at the time...

And I was definitely, without doubt, completely and utterly wrong in my appraisal of the positions.

The issue was one of understanding - not being able to understand, or respect why it is especially dangerous until I understood what is/isn't desirable in the 1. d4 equivalents, and why what works there doesn't work against the 1. c4 related approaches if white handles the position correctly. The fact my opponents didn't understand how to correctly handle the white pieces only perpetuated the problem until I got to face a GM in it that could exploit it.

The Nimzo-English and Anglo-Grunfeld share this issue. Everything seems so similar, so what white is doing doesn't look impressive initially. At first you're wondering why they'd bother avoiding transposition to the standard 1. d4 lines, or at least that's the impression I had at the time I was going through this years ago.

Until I got stuck in middlegames against higher quality play where you have none of the standard counterplay you're supposed to have in those openings, and you get ground down. It was like a, "Eureka!" moment when I realized the problem with the middlegames wasn't the way I was handling them, but the fact they simply weren't good enough positions in the first place.

That's the issue with the NID/Grunfeld tries against the English - the positions are completely solid, but lack any of the counterplay typical to those openings. 

A very recent example of this lack of counterplay issue was the Ivanchuk-Vachier Lagrave, Khanty Mansiysk 2010 game. White's set-up doesn't appear like it's trying for much, but black ends up with no counterplay like he would have in Grunfeld equivalents.

Quote:


With the new Tarrasch repertoire book around the corner it'd be a good call, and maybe the analysis/evaluations will hold up regardless of rating. It could be a good choice regardless of thread starter's rating, especially since it's a catch-all (the other catch-all being the KID, but the KID is way more theoretical).

Jay wrote on 01/19/11 at 05:16:15:


Absent any more info about your chess skill, but assuming you're rated at least 2100, I recommend the Gruenfeld, which I regard as the most principled response to 1.d4.  There are two ways to play it.  Either you can play 1...Nf6 versus 1.d4, 1.c4 and 1.d4, and tough it out in a pseudo-Gruenfeld if White goes that way in one of the two latter cases; or you can add the Symmetrical English to your repertoire and answer only 1.d4 with 1...Nf6, and versus 1.Nf3 or 1.c4 play 1...c5.   The latter option is available only to Sicilian players, but it seems you are one.

Personally I would suggest the first route, since I'm not all that impressed with White's anti-Gruenfeld machinations after 1.c4 and 1.Nf3.  There are those here who feel differently, especially those who have White repertoires based on avoiding the Gruenfeld.

If however you're not rated at least 2100 or so, I would recommend instead the Tarrasch, which can be played equally well against 1.d4, 1.Nf3 or 1.c4 (play 1..e6 in the latter case).