RdC wrote on 03/26/13 at 18:29:46:

For king's pawn openings, I often do recognize opening and early middle game positions in tactical puzzles as probably having come from a specific opening. I just don't know the queen's pawn stuff.

I know there are some QGD games in the books I've read. I just don't remember all the details, especially since it's been over 10 years since I read Logical Chess: Move by Move, and I was a total newbie back then. That was one of the first chess books I ever read, probably a year or two before I joined USCF and earned my starting 1250 rating.

Fromper wrote on 03/26/13 at 17:09:03:


I rather saw it as the other way round and part of pattern recognition. For a particular early middle game position, could you identify the opening that it most likely arose from? If you saw the early moves of the game being played on the next board, would you be able to tell someone what opening was played.

Logical Chess Move by Move is full of discussion about the positions arising from the Queens Gambit Declined.   

RdC wrote on 03/26/13 at 16:21:32:

What makes you think I don't know any opening names? I've mentioned quite a few in this thread alone. As a 1. e4 player, I know the names of pretty much all the king's pawn openings, including some oddball sidelines that I've never actually tried playing. But why would I know the names of every opening I've never even considered playing? I know some, even if I've never considered trying them, just not all.

I remember talking to a near-master player once who had been playing 1. d4 exclusively since he was a kid, and the Sicilian against 1. e4, and he didn't know the difference between the Danish Gambit, Scotch Gambit, and Goring Gambit. He'd heard the names before, but never really payed attention to those types of openings, so they didn't matter to him. That's the same way I am about many of the 1. d4 openings that I've never played.

Fromper wrote on 03/26/13 at 16:00:26:


I'm aware there are books and coaching methods which advocate study of tactics rather than study of openings. I had always interpreted that to mean that you stuck to main lines and general principles instead of knowing obscure and  concrete ideas or long tactical variations. I didn't think it meant not being able to identify positions as arising from particular openings. How do you discuss games without being able to use opening names as a form of shorthand? 

Kings Indian

1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 Bg7

Gruenfeld

1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 g6 3. Nc3 d5

Benoni
1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 c5 3. d5

Nimzo Indian
1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Bb4

Queens Indian
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3. Nf3 b6

Other move orders possible naturally.

Fromper wrote on 03/26/13 at 14:37:11:


I agree. Even when I reached 2200 I had zero knowledge of the QGD. I did somewhat understand the Modern Benoni and the Leningrad Dutch and occasionally played 1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6 without understanding it. I guess the rather limited approach to chess I used in those days is one of the reasons why I never reached 2300.

kylemeister wrote on 03/26/13 at 05:13:50:

This surprises you? I'm more surprised by the fact that this surprises you.

Given how many people I've seen online following the Michael de la Maza "nothing but tactics" improvement plan, and the fact that I know people from OTB clubs who have reached the 1700's USCF just by playing a lot, without ever looking at a chess book, nothing surprises me when it comes to chess players' lack of knowledge below 1800 USCF. Beyond that, they'd probably need to crack open a (non-tactics) book once in a while to continue improving.

I actually used to play the QGD as black when I first started, but only until I was rated in the 1300s, and I didn't really understand it at all. I just knew that it was quiet and boring, and everyone said I needed to play more open games, so I switched up my openings a few times trying to find a more exciting responses to d4. I was actually pretty happy with the Englund Gambit (1. d4 e5?!) until about 1500 - I don't think I ever lost a game with it to an opponent below 1600. But by the time I hit the 1500s and started having a realistic chance of upsetting the 1800s in my club, I realized my weak opening was making it harder, so I looked around for something different. That's when I tried the Tarrasch, then toyed with a couple of other openings that I didn't stick with long enough to really learn them, before finding the Dutch.

I don't know anything about the English, either. I know the main responses are supposed to be e5 and c5, but I don't know any theory beyond that. To me, one of the appeals of the Tarrasch and Dutch that led me to try them out is that they could be played against both c4 and d4, so I've managed to completely avoid English theory all along.

And I probably do know a little bit about some of these other openings, just from looking over master games here and there. But I don't know any theory, or which openings have which ideas associated with them. Mostly, I look at those master games and understand that they're developing their pieces in the opening, but I don't have any idea why they're developing in the particular ways that they are. Then they reach the middle game, and I have a little more clue about what's going on, though I'm often still lost in closed positions, before things open up and get tactical.

As for alternate responses to d4, I've played the Stonewall a little, but usually as a transposition while trying to play the Classical Dutch, when my opponents do something weird that makes the Stonewall better than sticking to the Classical. I'd consider trying out the QGD or some other mainstream alternate, for variety and the learning experience. What do the rest of you consider the most useful queen's pawn opening to learn, from a long term educational perspective?

Fromper wrote on 03/26/13 at 04:04:59:


If the 1700 player has aspirations to go above that,lack of knowledge of whole families of positions is a stumbling block. The higher the standard of player, the more likely they are to prepare specifically for an opponent or to have devious transpositions in their armoury. 

As a sort of example, I was paired against a nominally higher rated Junior in a team event. I noticed that he played the Dragadorf against 1. e4 but I couldn't find any games where he met 1. Nf3. I therefore decided to use one of my back up openings. So the game started 1. Nf3 d5 2. g3 c5 3. Bg2 Nc6 4. d4 Nf6 5. 0-0 . This you could regard as either a reverse Gruenfeld, a potential transposition to the Rubinstein line against the Tarrasch, or even some lines of the Catalan. My opponent's lack of knowledge of any of these was shown when he continued with 5. .. b6 and after 6. c4, white is very much better because of the white square diagonal weaknesses exploited by Qa4, Ne5 etc.