Looks good.  Are Quality Chess books ever available as ebooks?

I think part of my distrust for the Tarrasch comes from the fact that Rubinstein-Salwe 1908 is one of my favourite classical games.

Also, it's true you get an IQP and active pieces, but I never quite figured out what Black is supposed to do with that activity.  It looks to me like white has no weaknesses, and the fianchetto pretty much rules out a kingside attack while also making it difficult to hang on to the d-pawn.  I've played IQPs as white (mostly in the Panov-Botvinnik), and in those cases Black usually doesn't have time to fianchetto without making some concession.

ErictheRed wrote on 08/27/17 at 17:35:49:


At least it helps to play typical isolated pawn positions to know them from own experience and use them as weapon against players avoiding it. If you see a player of equal strength in the database without a single position of this type its a hint what to prepare for.

If you like playing the Tarrasch, it's a very easy defense to the Closed Games--easy in the sense that you can get it against pretty much anything and any move order.  On the other hand, there have been many periods of time where it's been considered a suspect or nearly dubious opening, so I'm not sure that it qualifies as "solid."  But in some sense, everyone thinking about a defense to the Closed Games should take a closer look at it, because as I said, it makes things much simpler for the second player.  And under 2000 or so, I don't think many players have the ability to squeeze those positions from the White side like Karpov did against Kasparov.  

I think of the Tarrasch as an excellent (if perhaps lazy) defense for juniors, and an occasional weapon for stronger adults.  I suspect that at some point people become a bit tire of seeing the same few structures over and over and decide to move on, though.

I tried the Tarrasch years ago, but never got on with it. There are a few players who think it's great and have great results with it, but I suspect survivorship bias.

Sounds like the QGD fits the bill. The immediate consequences of an error in the QGD are usually not that severe. In the Bf4 variation that bothers you, maybe bite the bullet and learn some theory as best you can (Chess Position Trainer perhaps). I myself am always cheered by the fact that ...c5 is easy to achieve there.

LeeRoth wrote on 08/26/17 at 13:57:48:

Perhaps I should mention that my main defence to 1.d4 has at various points been the Chigorin, the English Defence and the Leningrad Dutch! Maybe defences like that aren't even on your radar, but you can understand why the KID doesn't feel that risky to me. Especially if Black avoids the Mar del Plata and chooses something comparatively solid like 6...e5!? against the 4PA and the Byrne system against the Sämisch.

LeeRoth wrote on 08/26/17 at 13:57:48:

My point was that there's an objective sense of "solid" (or really several, as per ReneDescartes' list below) and then there's a sense that depends on the level of the players. With the KID you're likely to survive the opening, get castled and not face an immediate attack on the king or tactical chaos. On, say, 1800 level, even if some middlegame positions are objectively risky, just a bit more understanding of and experience with those typical structures can nullify any objective strategic/long-term problems.

LeeRoth wrote on 08/26/17 at 13:57:48:

Good point. I often spend quite a bit of time trying to predict which line(s) will appear against a particular opponent. But this is nowhere near foolproof, which is why being able and ready to play many different kinds of positions is important. Ideally I want to have a varied repertoire for different situations, but I always find myself drawn to openings that tend to be on the sharp/unbalanced side but not completely tactical and irrational.

Stigma wrote on 08/26/17 at 05:18:27:


Didn't you just say that these were "unnecessary debates?"  Yet, here we are.

But, to answer your question, I mainly meant it in a categorical sense.  In my view, the KID belongs to the category of the hardest and least solid 1.d4 defenses to play because, unlike defenses where Black occupies the center with pawns (QGD) or tries to control the center with pieces (Nimzo), in the KID, Black surrenders the center.

On top of that, even among that third-category of 1.d4 defenses, I think of the KID as being the opposite of a "solid, low theory" opening.  The opening has to be more about the first couple of moves.  I frankly do not understand your comment that an opening can be "solid" if it leads to "strategically marginal or dubious" middlegame positions.  The KID can lead to very complicated structures where the pawn breaks are difficult to see and calculate.

Note:  Focusing here on 1.d4 defenses, as that is what the OP was asking about.  The open games and 1.e4 openings are different animals. 

I suppose I should also add that these are generalizations.  You can, of course, get sharp positions out of solid openings, and vice versa.  But if you're going to pick a 1.d4 defense, I think you need to consider its overall character, since you can't always count on getting the particular lines you want.