opens that play against d4

@Blitz51 said in #1:
> i would like to have some suggested opening to play against d4 i normally use the scandinavian defense against e4

Against 1.d4 I suggest c5. It's rare and interesting.
"With 1... c5, Black takes a sideways swipe at the central d-pawn. If White answers with 2. d5 the main lines of the Old Benoni Defence are reached. If White accepts the gambit with 2. dxc5, Black gets an easy game with 2... e6 followed by 3... Bxc5. " That's what lichess say, but you can even recapure the pawn with the queen (Qa5+).

"I normally use the scandinavian defense against e4"
Don't do that. It's wrong at your level. Play Philidor's defence (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6) or Anti fried liver defence (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 h6).
I can guarrantee that some 2000 rated fanatics will downvote this, but don't pay attention to them. First you need to get to 1300-1400. I had been playing the Philidor for 2 years myself.

And last but not least. With white play the Bishop's opening: 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4. The idea is to pile up on f7. Or just play the London System.

@pointlesswindows said in #11:
> Against 1.d4 I suggest c5. It's rare and interesting.
> "With 1... c5, Black takes a sideways swipe at the central d-pawn. If White answers with 2. d5 the main lines of the Old Benoni Defence are reached. If White accepts the gambit with 2. dxc5, Black gets an easy game with 2... e6 followed by 3... Bxc5. " That's what lichess say, but you can even recapure the pawn with the queen (Qa5+).
>
> "I normally use the scandinavian defense against e4"
> Don't do that. It's wrong at your level. Play Philidor's defence (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 d6) or Anti fried liver defence (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 h6).
> I can guarrantee that some 2000 rated fanatics will downvote this, but don't pay attention to them. First you need to get to 1300-1400. I had been playing the Philidor for 2 years myself.
>
> And last but not least. With white play the Bishop's opening: 1. e4 e5 2. Bc4. The idea is to pile up on f7. Or just play the London System.
While I do agree with the benoni, I certainly do not agree with h6. I mean its still played a handful of times at master games and can be critical at the OP's level, but it is a bit of a useless move.

Also there is no need for any opening theory at the level of the OP. Basic principles and setups do everything. You can without any opening theory upto 1700s and just the first 5 moves upto 1700! Atleast I did that.

i do play the london but was thinking of changing to the queen's gambit

@AbhirupPal said in #12:
> While I do agree with the benoni, I certainly do not agree with h6. I mean its still played a handful of times at master games and can be critical at the OP's level, but it is a bit of a useless move.
>
> Also there is no need for any opening theory at the level of the OP. Basic principles and setups do everything. You can without any opening theory upto 1700s and just the first 5 moves upto 1700! Atleast I did that.

You are right except one detail. Below 1500 he still needs to learn a few opening moves (about 5 moves in 2-3 mainlines), even if it is "useless" for you like h6. It's better than for example allowing a minefield like the Fried Liver.

@pointlesswindows said in #14:
> You are right except one detail. Below 1500 he still needs to learn a few opening moves (about 5 moves in 2-3 mainlines), even if it is "useless" for you like h6. It's better than for example allowing a minefield like the Fried Liver.
Why am I not surprised that you are afraid of the fried liver. I also find it funny that you are giving someone advice on openings so that they can improve despite only playing people 300-400 rating points lower rated than yourself. At the same time, you are correcting someone higher rated than you and therefore more experience than you. Perhaps you shouldn't give people advice on things you are not good at as you only end up embarrassing yourself.

i've seen myself going down the alapin against d4 almost to a point where i should probably stop playing it and move onto something else