Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) QID vs QGD? (Read 2921 times)
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2223
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: QID vs QGD?
Reply #15 - 02/12/21 at 03:36:04
Post Tools
Yes, exactly.

There is a world of difference between 2500 GMs (who would be considered 'weak' by 2700+ players, being a full 'category' below them) playing stuff, playing anything, and the incredibly well-armed 2700 world class super-GMs.

I perhaps expressed this clumsily earlier. This is meaning no disrespect to the lower GMs, of course. it's just to recognise what LeeRoth counts and describes clearly- that 3...d5 is where it's at for the elite.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1513
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: QID vs QGD?
Reply #14 - 02/12/21 at 00:38:00
Post Tools
After 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3, the move 3..d5 is the overwhelming choice of elite players.  Looking at the Tata Steel A group and the recently-completed Opera preliminaries, 3..d5 was played 25 times, 3..b6 was played twice, and 3..a6 was played once.  If you look back at high level tournaments from 2020, I think you will see roughly the same. 

I don't think this is simply fashion in the sense that 3..d5 and 3..b6 are equally as good and they are picking 3..d5 just because.  3..d5 appears to be regarded as more solid and more flexible than 3..b6.  Indeed, I wonder if "fashion" is even still a thing given how carefully and concretely today's top players prepare their openings.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1123
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: QID vs QGD?
Reply #13 - 02/02/21 at 01:22:22
Post Tools
Bibs wrote on 02/01/21 at 23:45:23:
Of course there are so many random GMs of 2400-2500 level who are clueless with tech, and those are of little concern.

While I somewhat disagree with what JFugre wrote, I strongly disagree with the quoted remark. "Random"? "Clueless"? Are we talking about GMs? Here in the USA I have never heard of a GM traveling to a tournament without a laptop, not in the last 20 years. True, once in a blue moon I read about such a thing in a magazine, but it's also pointed out to be special circumstances. The last time I spoke to GM Lein (a few years back, obviously) he repeatedly mentioned he needed a new computer so he could prepare properly. And Lein was as old school as they come.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2223
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: QID vs QGD?
Reply #12 - 02/01/21 at 23:45:23
Post Tools
JFugre wrote on 02/01/21 at 13:00:05:
Quote:
In general, I think it is the defence against 1. d4 that suffered the greatest hit to its reputation at the hands of computers in recent times.


They saw Alpha Zero beat ancient Stockfish in a few games and now the 2 is refuted. Just a matter of fashion, GM are typically very sensitive to it, and a surprising lack of understanding of the state of computers. Many titled players still think Alpha Zero is the best engine, have vaguely heard of Leela and have no idea what NNUE is.


I am surprised by this comment, and respectfully skeptical.

May I ask - what makes you assert this? Have you discussed this with many of the, say, top 20, top 100, or top 500?

My impression is quite the opposite - that stronger GM players are very tuned in to the strengths and weaknesses of differing softwares, and are very up-to-date.

Noting Shanklnd's suggestion that QID is not trusted so much nowadays, we can helpfully restrict this to players likely to be somewhat respected in that orbit - say 2650 plus. Of course there are so many random GMs of 2400-2500 level who are clueless with tech, and those are of little concern.


  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
JFugre
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 88
Joined: 01/22/19
Re: QID vs QGD?
Reply #11 - 02/01/21 at 13:00:05
Post Tools
Quote:
In general, I think it is the defence against 1. d4 that suffered the greatest hit to its reputation at the hands of computers in recent times.


They saw Alpha Zero beat ancient Stockfish in a few games and now the QID is refuted. Just a matter of fashion, GM are typically very sensitive to it, and a surprising lack of understanding of the state of computers. Many titled players still think Alpha Zero is the best engine, have vaguely heard of Leela and have no idea what NNUE is.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FreeRepublic
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 168
Location: Georgia
Joined: 06/08/17
Gender: Male
Re: QID vs QGD?
Reply #10 - 01/31/21 at 00:18:18
Post Tools
I will critic my own posts that mention statistics. A one-year look is often too short a duration. Sometimes a year differs greatly from the prior year.

I've done some more searches in the QID, specifically in lines where white fianchetos and answers ...Ba6 with b3. A few systems have been recommended for black.

A general result is that black does very well (around 50%) in an unrestricted search. Black may run into trouble when the games are restricted to players rated over 2500. It might not be the best opening to play against Sam Shankland.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FreeRepublic
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 168
Location: Georgia
Joined: 06/08/17
Gender: Male
Re: QID vs QGD?
Reply #9 - 01/30/21 at 00:06:14
Post Tools
FreeRepublic wrote on 01/29/21 at 23:15:30:
I did a search in my Chess Assistant data base for 2020 for the Queen's Indian. I restricted white and black elo ratings to at least 2500 up to 3100.


I don't usually restrict my search to such rarefied ratings. I don't play those people.

Having restricted the search, another question came to mind. What would the results be using the same criteria after the moves 1d4 Nf6 2c4 e6 3Nf3 (avoiding the Nimzo) d5.

White only scores 51%. That was a surprise.

The games provided go beyond the QGD and Catalan, including such lines as the Meran and the Queen's Gambit Accepted. So I did 4 more searches adding ECO codes to the criteria.
E00-09, Catalan, only 49%. Another surprise.
D37, QGD with Bf4, 52%
D38-D39, Ragozin and Vienna, 60%. Ouch.
D50-D59, QGD Bg5, 45% on only 84 games. I assume this is just a chance event, with other years showing statistics which are not so dismal for white.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1123
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: QID vs QGD?
Reply #8 - 01/30/21 at 00:02:44
Post Tools
I'm no Sam Shankland, but that assessment can't be correct. I mean, white can get "pressure" in the QID, but not more than in the Catalan or the QGD. Isn't it just fashion and move orders?
  • Against the Catalan black needs something else.
  • Against the English the Hedgehog has lost popularity.
  • Nimzo-Indian players have way too many choices against 3.Nf3: Benoni, Ragozin, Semi-Tarrasch, etc.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FreeRepublic
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 168
Location: Georgia
Joined: 06/08/17
Gender: Male
Re: QID vs QGD?
Reply #7 - 01/29/21 at 23:15:30
Post Tools
LeeRoth wrote on 01/29/21 at 22:49:51:
At club level, it is strictly a matter of preference.

At the top level, against 3.Nf3, the elites prefer some form of the QGD (including defenses such as the Ragozin and Semi-Slav).

The 163F3F08352E325A05 is a bit out of fashion at the top.  Per Sam Shankland:

“Not so long ago, the Queen's Indian Defence was a mainstay in elite-level chess, and it would seem unfathomable to think that just 15 years later, it would be mostly gone. In general, I think it is the defence against 1. d4 that suffered the greatest hit to its reputation at the hands of computers in recent times. I wouldn't be so bold as to say I have conclusively proved an advantage, but I think I can put Black under a lot of pressure.“


That is certainly a comment worthy of note. I wonder what particular variations he had in mind.

I did a search in my Chess Assistant data base for 2020 for the Queen's Indian. I restricted white and black elo ratings to at least 2500 up to 3100. The results:

+88=86-71, or 53%

I have two rules of thumb. 55% is typical. 3 white wins for every 2 black wins is typical. By either measure, the results above are good for black.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
LeeRoth
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 1513
Joined: 10/22/05
Re: QID vs QGD?
Reply #6 - 01/29/21 at 22:49:51
Post Tools
At club level, it is strictly a matter of preference.

At the top level, against 3.Nf3, the elites prefer some form of the QGD (including defenses such as the Ragozin and Semi-Slav).

The QID is a bit out of fashion at the top.  Per Sam Shankland:

“Not so long ago, the Queen's Indian Defence was a mainstay in elite-level chess, and it would seem unfathomable to think that just 15 years later, it would be mostly gone. In general, I think it is the defence against 1. d4 that suffered the greatest hit to its reputation at the hands of computers in recent times. I wouldn't be so bold as to say I have conclusively proved an advantage, but I think I can put Black under a lot of pressure.“
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FreeRepublic
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 168
Location: Georgia
Joined: 06/08/17
Gender: Male
Re: QID vs QGD?
Reply #5 - 01/29/21 at 21:55:59
Post Tools
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 and black can play 3...c5. I believe my opponents have always answered 4d5 and it has usually turned out well for black.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1123
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: QID vs QGD?
Reply #4 - 01/29/21 at 18:00:54
Post Tools
FreeRepublic wrote on 01/29/21 at 17:22:20:
I think this is a very good question. It was asked almost a year ago, and only received one response.

It's an important question, but not necessarily a good question. There's a difference. If the OP had been willing to return here and follow up on the one response they did get, perhaps it could have turned into a useful discussion.

I think the QID requires black to be able to play many different structures, compared to the QGD which might need knowledge of only three or four (Carlsbad, IQP, perhaps QGA, and perhaps hanging pawns). And as MNb ironically points out there are still some move order issues to be resolved.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
MNb
God Member
*****
Offline


Rudolf Spielmann forever

Posts: 10569
Location: Moengo
Joined: 01/05/04
Gender: Male
Re: QID vs QGD?
Reply #3 - 01/29/21 at 17:44:32
Post Tools
FreeRepublic wrote on 01/29/21 at 17:22:20:
What if you play the Nimzo and 4F7B6C6C5B6C797C6B65606A0907 instead? Well, no Catalan to worry about.

1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3.
  

The book had the effect good books usually have: it made the stupids more stupid, the intelligent more intelligent and the other thousands of readers remained unchanged.
GC Lichtenberg
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
FreeRepublic
Full Member
***
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 168
Location: Georgia
Joined: 06/08/17
Gender: Male
Re: QID vs QGD?
Reply #2 - 01/29/21 at 17:22:20
Post Tools
I think this is a very good question. It was asked almost a year ago, and only received one response. I think the reason for the question is not readily apparent. It relates to a variety of issues/questions.

What if you play the Nimzo-Indian defense. What do you pair it with, if white plays 3Nf3? There is the QID, QGD, Bogo-Indian, modern Benoni. Blumenfeld. Anything else?

What if you tentatively decide to play the Nimzo with the QGD? Well why bother with the Nimzo in the first place? Why not simply play the QGD all the time? As an added bonus, the QGD pretty much provides a ready answer against the English opening.

Personally I like the forthright character of the queen's gambit declined. However, it involves learning the exchange variation, Bg5 variation, Bf4 variation, and the Catalan. If you play the Nimzo and the QGD, the exchange variation is largely neutralized. Also, Ne2 vs the Tartakover is gone. It may be worth it.

What if you play the Nimzo and QID instead? Well, no Catalan to worry about. The Nimzo and QID seem to be very good openings in both theory and practice. Still, there are many variations in the QID to learn. Also, you need an answer to the English opening. I think 1c4 e5 is good for black, but it certainly benefits from preparation and experience.

In theory, the Nimzo, QID, and 1c4 e5 provide a rock solid, with chances, repertoire and is the way to go. In practice, there are many variations to learn. Do they suit your style?

The Nimzo, QGD, and 1c4 e5, is a lot of work also. While this might suit my style better, statistics on the QGD are far from stellar from black's perspective.

Simply playing the QGD is an option. It's just one opening, despite several variations. Black plays directly and logically. Unfortunately, black provides no impediment for white, who can likewise play directly and logically. I think theory and practice are more difficult here.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Uberdecker
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 624
Joined: 03/21/06
Re: QID vs QGD?
Reply #1 - 02/13/20 at 14:51:34
Post Tools
Speaking only for myself, I would choose the QID over the QGD because of a general distaste for the Black side of double Queen Pawn openings.
On the whole, I also prefer playing against an IQP rather than with it.
I am comfortable with various forms of Hedgehog (truly a requisite for employing the QID) as well as hybrid NID/QID lines that feature the occupation and control of e4 with pieces.
I'd also say that early liquidation is less common in the QID than the QGD and there is probably a bit more room for Black to outplay White. There is no doubt a bit more risk involved as well, especially if one plays into White's dangerous gambit lines with d5 and Nh4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo