I will read this but wanted to say that whole site is laid out and organized very well and I certainly appreciate the translator too!
Thanks

Yeah I've had some games like that too, and it's not pleasant.

I guess it's academic what we say here, as I think we don't disagree about any strategic reality.  If you strip off the pieces, white's structure is certainly worse; but then you'd be in the endgame! And no structure confers an advantage independent of its relation to the pieces. But how is the ideal center of the e4-d4 duo itself useful in the middlegame? You can post, for example, your knights in front of it and bishops and rooks behind it, advance it to open lines and remove defenders, use your maneuvering space behind it to switch targets, etc. The IQP in the middlegame gives you a lesser version of all this because of White's central superiority, i.e. because of the pawn structure. That's all I meant.

Now, in order to imagine that Black has caught up with White in terms of piece activity, I have to imagine those White knight outposts and maneuvering threats somehow matched by Black, and that means that black has overcome the space advantage and influence of the center and square-for-square has more piece activity than White, ceteris paribus. Then, of course, with the middlegame advantage of the better center neutralized by hypothesis, the IQP becomes a potential object of attack rather than a means of attack.

Perhaps such a middlegame feature can't sensibly be evaluated in isolation (so to speak).

That may be redefining "gambit" a bit as any activity obtained for something else. White's pawn structure is generally *better* in the middlegame (the center), and without a material concession! Also, an IQP is certainly not always lost in the endgame, and how reliably could you or your your oponent convert one clean pawn, anyway?

It's a great way to experience the miracle of piece activity. I don't think you'll get massacred this way; on the contrary, I think tactics will tend to go more your way than in the Colle.

The idea of the book is to get IQP positions, and learn from them. That's makes ...d5 the best move for the readers of the book.

But I don't know if playing gambits is something you should learn to handle before learning to play IQP.

Solid advice from Jupp53. Also Erik Kislik had the good advice to play practice games against the computer, where you take the black side. Then the computer will show you where white's play is. If you find a training partner as Jupp53 suggested, it would be good if you could agree to play the same variation with both colors.

Really, if you are convinced that your opponent will take the pawn, then this becomes the best opening choice you could make. Actually I don't know the theory of this line, but in general if you can predict your opponent will make a second-best move then an opening is worth playing. Provided of course that you have studied it. When you reach a level where all your opponents are playing 7...d5, then perhaps it will be time to look for another line.

I'm trying to switch to open games from Colle. One book recommended is "A simple chess opening repertoire for white" by Sam Collins and many of he's recommendations lead to a IQP.

In the Italian game, following line is recommended:
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4 7. Nbd2
The best move is 7...d5 leading to IQP.

But on my level probably most of my opponents will grab the pawn with 7...Nxe4, and white is a pawn down. 

A safer line is the non-gambit 7.Bd2.

The gambit line is a big step from my "safe" Colle setup, and I'm not sure I want to go that way.

Even so, maybe the gambit line is more educational than the other line.

Suggestions?