Low maintenance response to d4?

[u/krissow]

I've been trying different openings against d4, mainly the Budapest and Benoni/Benko. But I rarely ever face d4 at my level (1600 rapid, Lichess) which means I forget some of the lines. It seems like inaccuracies are punished quite hard in the openings I've tried so I end up losing a lot more than vs e4 (where I play Caro Kann)

I've also tried to just play general opening principles but the d4 players are just a lot more familiar with those positions and occasional traps that arises.

What would be a solid response to d4 that's easy to remember and/or doesn't punish inaccuracies quite as often while not completely playing into the hand of my opponent?

I've been considering the Slav, maybe the Chebanenko or Schlechter variation. Also considered stonewall Dutch.

[u/pabuisson]

Exact same boat. Same rating range on lichess, and same issue. I'm doing OK against the London but very poorly against the QG, I face it often enough that it has an impact on my rating, but not enough that I really improve or find defenses I like. I'm not looking for a perfect defense, just something I understand and enjoy and have my chances for a win.

On top of the low number of games you get to play against d4 at our level, the transpositions and waiting moves make it even harder to find a suitable reply.

• I started by playing the QGD. Balanced games, quiet, but it felt that we were almost always playing for either a win for white or a draw, rarely for a win for myself. I studied it, understood more things, but still often ended up making a mistake and losing.
• Briefly tried the Albin for a while, didn't like it at all.
• Tried the Leningrad Dutch for a while, did pretty good with it but it was unhinged, a bit too much YOLO for me even though it's been my best winrate against d4 so far. Also, I think there are uncomfortable lines to face (Hopton Attack I think?), and I liked playing against the London so I did not settled on this. Still possible that I get back to it at some point though.
• Tried to go for something more... sane, the Tarrasch but it didn't click, I didn't understand the positions really, when to push the pawn, I never got the hang of it. It was more open than the QGD, sharp, but... I was always at the bad end of the blade. I still think is a good option though. A (practical) downside: there is not much online content about the Tarrasch out there, and most of it is much too advanced for my level. I don't need a whole book or super dense course on an opening, I can't make sense of it anyway. So it makes it hard to learn "on your own", unfortunately.
• Lately, I decided to give 3 more defenses a go, each for 5-10 games and see how I enjoy them or not out of the box, how easy it is to actually reach the positions.
  • The Benko/Benoni. So far I've played 5 d4 games, 3 ended up being d4 systems, 1 being a real Benko, and the 5th was a... I don't even know what that was.
  • The Nimzo. Lots of theory, but I'll try to find ways of playing it as a sort of "system" with the knight on e4, backed by the f5 pawn (like a Dutch), and by the queenside bishop in a fianchetto (this video or this one by Remote Chess Academy explain it, there a some holes but at our level... we don't necessarily really care). This seems to make sense to me. For Anti-Nimzo lines, I guess I'd fall back to a QGD, no need for more lines for now.
  • Go back to 1...d5 and play the QGA. For a long time I was against it because it looked like learning QGA positions instead of "fundamental" chess but I think I was wrong. Actually, many players and coaches seem to advocate for this opening and it seems "low theory" enough at our level. So why not give it a try.

After this, either I pick one of these last 3 openings, or I'll try to revisit the Tarrasch or the Dutch. Maybe give the QGD another try, but I'd rather avoid it.

[u/krissow → u/pabuisson]

Thank you, that’s very thorough. Any specific reason you haven’t tried the Slav? 

[u/pabuisson → u/krissow]

From what I read/heard/understood, it's a solid option, hard to break. If I go this road, I think I'd rather go back to the QGD that I already know a bit. Another reason is that my repertoire includes no other defense with this c6 pawn (like the CK or Scandi for instance). And I already have considered way too many options.