Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis (Read 12663 times)
fling
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1491
Joined: 01/21/11
Gender: Male
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #93 - 01/08/18 at 23:58:46
Post Tools
I have to say that the e-book version is a bit messy and hard to navigate. That is more critique against the Forward chess-app than the book in itself. Anyway, what I mean by saying this is that I am not sure if a line is covered in it or not.

In particular, I am looking for a line in the Exchange variation where White does not play 7. Bd3. The only thing I find on this is a short note saying that "7. Qc2 Nbd7 hardly changes anything, as White will surely put his bishop on d3 at some point.". However, what about the games Kasimdzhanov-Hertneck, 2001, or the games played by Van Wely against Filippov in 2004? The idea is that White can e.g. Ne5 and drop the knight back to d3 in case of ...g6 and ...Bf5. In these 3 games, Black played 11...g6, but got into some trouble.

Is the game Anand-Kramnik, Zurich 2015 something to follow in this case perhaps?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2275
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #92 - 12/30/17 at 16:37:18
Post Tools
Wow Flig, that was brutal.  I can't imagine that 5.g4?! is particularly good, but it is the sort of move that I think should be covered (even if in half a page) in a repertoire book.  I can't imagine that it's worse than the Blackmar-Diemer Gambit for instance, and it was recommended in a book for the White side (if recommended is the right word).  It's the sort of thing that you might encounter in a club match if your opponent wants to spring a sharp surprise weapon on you.

Still no book can cover absolutely everything, and Ntirlis did an admirable job of packing a ton of information into ~325 pages. 

Speaking of the Blackmar-Diemer, I've never played the Euwe Defense before as I've always thought that's basically what White wants to see when he plays the opening.  However after just casually perusing and reading Ntirlis' coverage without a board, I decided to play the Euwe Defense in an online blitz game against a FM, which I won very easily.  Perhaps I've underestimated it, and I'll take a closer look.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Fllg
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 600
Joined: 05/30/09
Gender: Male
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #91 - 12/30/17 at 09:53:18
Post Tools
The line 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 Be7 5.g4 is certainly worth a mention. It probably flew under the radar of the author because it has been played only rarely and the game Mamedyarov - Ponomariov (the last high-level encounter in this line) is from 2010. Maybe the big guys know that it is not very good and therefore it has not been repeated on this level.

Apart from Ponomariov´s decent choice of 5...0-0 6.g5 Ne4 Black has a bunch of good-looking options:

a) 5...c5 would be my first thought.
b) 5...h6 and
c) 5...dxc4 certainly make a lot of sense.
d) even 5...Bb4!?, transposing to a Ragozin set-up where White has been given the move g2-g4 for free, isn´t ridiculous I think.

The last time a GM tried this he was beaten by a much lower-rated player in crushing style, which is not a good advertisement for 5.g4?!:

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2275
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #90 - 12/29/17 at 19:42:20
Post Tools
Oh you're right Rene; I don't know how I missed that.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 856
Joined: 05/18/10
Gender: Male
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #89 - 12/29/17 at 11:52:06
Post Tools
But the covered Nbd2 lines all have the bishop sealed in. It's not only the move order, but the combination of d4 with c4, Bg5 (or Bf4 for that matter) and Nbd2 that is not covered. This is hardly a criticism of Ntirlis--he can't cover every harmless nontheoretical possibility.
« Last Edit: 12/30/17 at 05:04:55 by ReneDescartes »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2275
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #88 - 12/28/17 at 21:14:34
Post Tools
I just received my copy, and while I haven't had much time with it, my initial impressions are quite positive. 

I will say that this idea of developing the b1-knight to d2 is covered in the book, in chapter 4b, beginning on page 182.  It's true that Ntirlis doesn't seem to say anything about the 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Bg5 move order in particular, but I can't possibly see how playing 4...Be7 would lead outside of the scope of the book.  There is also some coverage via the Colle move order.

One variation that I do wish had been covered, but which I can't find, is 5.g4!?.  It looks ridiculous but has been played by some strong players (rarely):



If I recall correctly, it was also covered in Dangerous Weapons: The Queen's Gambit, so it would have been nice if Ntirlis offered a solution for Black here. 


Stigma wrote on 12/22/17 at 14:24:57:
I didn't go back and look at the older threads. But doesn't 4.Bg5 h6 make a lot of sense if Black is a Moscow/Anti-Moscow player (like that Kaufman repertoire)?


Yes, you're probably right; 4...h6 should probably be the choice of a Moscow player.  But I'm not sure what to recommend if Black wants to play the Botvinnik, and even a Moscow player might be out of their normal repertoire after 5.Bxf6 Qxf6 6.Qb3 or 6.Nbd2.  Probably nothing too critical, but if you want to play the Botvinnik from this move order as Black, White can force you out of it.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 2624
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #87 - 12/22/17 at 14:24:57
Post Tools
ErictheRed wrote on 12/21/17 at 19:47:41:
As an aside, I've pointed out here before that Larry Kaufman's Chess Advantage in Black and White completely overlooked this move order, so if someone wanted to play a Semi-Slav as he recommended, a move order like 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.c4 d5 4.Bg5 c6 5.e3 completely bypasses Kaufman's old repertoire. 

I didn't go back and look at the older threads. But doesn't 4.Bg5 h6 make a lot of sense if Black is a Moscow/Anti-Moscow player (like that Kaufman repertoire)? That's what happened when I tried 4.Bg5 against an up-and-coming GM from India.

Perhaps 4.Bg5 is really most annoying for Botvinnik Semi-Slav players, though they could try to make 4...dxc4 work.
« Last Edit: 12/22/17 at 16:19:00 by Stigma »  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2275
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #86 - 12/21/17 at 19:47:41
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 12/21/17 at 00:45:10:
ErictheRed wrote on 12/20/17 at 21:43:52:
I fail to see how this move order could at all be an issue in Ntirlis' repertoire, that's all.

I don't see anyone here arguing it's an issue, certainly not in a theoretical sense. But it's still nice to be aware of the possibility and have a brief line prepared, like the one from ReneDescartes / ECO.


You're right, sorry; I just didn't understand the question in the context of this particular thread.  I've only ever understood the 3.Nf3 and 4.Bg5 move order as a way to avoid a few not-so-great gambits (Dutch-Peruvian), and the Semi-Slav.  If 4...c6 5.e3 instead of 5.Nc3, there's no Semi-Slav.  I've never known it to not transpose into normal QGD lines if that's what Black wants.   

We've had some other threads about this, for instance:

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1150193772

http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/chess/YaBB.pl?num=1245671556

As an aside, I've pointed out here before that Larry Kaufman's Chess Advantage in Black and White completely overlooked this move order, so if someone wanted to play a Semi-Slav as he recommended, a move order like 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.d4 d5 4.Bg5 c6 5.e3 completely bypasses Kaufman's old repertoire. 
« Last Edit: 12/22/17 at 15:06:47 by ErictheRed »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 2624
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #85 - 12/21/17 at 00:45:10
Post Tools
ErictheRed wrote on 12/20/17 at 21:43:52:
I fail to see how this move order could at all be an issue in Ntirlis' repertoire, that's all.

I don't see anyone here arguing it's an issue, certainly not in a theoretical sense. But it's still nice to be aware of the possibility and have a brief line prepared, like the one from ReneDescartes / ECO.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2275
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #84 - 12/20/17 at 21:43:52
Post Tools
Yes Stigma, that's what I meant to say (I edited my post). 

I've never thought that Nb1-d2 made much sense outside of the Semi-Slav (or Colle) move order that Palliser gave, but sure, it's playable.  Also with a bishop on e7 instead of d6, ...dxc4 becomes more viable since the knight doesn't recapture with tempo. 

I fail to see how this move order could at all be an issue in Ntirlis' repertoire, that's all.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 2624
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #83 - 12/20/17 at 19:48:28
Post Tools
Yes, Black going for an immediate ...c5 instead of ...c6 was one of the problems I discovered with this Nbd2 setup.

But I only played it up to a level of maybe 1700, and there most Black QGD players would rattle off lots of solid-looking moves (Be7, Nbd7, 0-0, c6 etc.) on auto-pilot. Sort of a "get some pieces out, get castled, and only then start thinking" mindset.

ErictheRed wrote on 12/20/17 at 17:37:26:
Palliser recommended this move order, but didn't he want normal Queen's Gambit lines? I don't think that he followed up by putting the knight on c3.

Palliser in Play 1.d4! went for 5.Nc3 against 4...Be7, allowing regular QGD lines. But that's what you meant to say, right?

Actually he still covered the lines I used to play – but from a Triangle move order: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 4.Bg5 Nf6 5.Nbd2!? followed by e3, Bd3, 0-0, etc. I had already stopped playing this when Palliser's book came out, and I haven't kept up with theory here at all. But I would still be tempted to play like this if I could get Black to commit to an early ...c6.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 856
Joined: 05/18/10
Gender: Male
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #82 - 12/20/17 at 18:00:03
Post Tools
kylemeister wrote on 12/20/17 at 17:34:16:
ReneDescartes wrote on 12/20/17 at 17:08:08:
So here is my line--not Ntirlis': 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7!? (4. Bb4=) 5.e3 O-O 6.Nbd2 Nbd7 (6...b6 and 7...c5 =) 7.Rc1 c5 =.


That (with 7. Rc1 c5 leading to equality) was also a main line in ECO (2004), with the cited games unsurprisingly including one by Hebden and one by Capablanca.


Good to know. I didn't want to lay claim to it, just to absolve Ntirlis from any of my errors. I was expanding my post while you wrote this, so it doesn't read exactly the same way now.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2275
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #81 - 12/20/17 at 17:37:26
Post Tools
Palliser recommended this move order, but didn't he want normal Queen's Gambit lines?  I don't think that he followed up by putting the knight on d2.

I don't think that this move order should be at all problematic if Black wants his bishop on e7.  It's only potentially annoying against Ragozin, Vienna, and Semi-Slav players, unless I'm missing something.
« Last Edit: 12/20/17 at 21:40:43 by ErictheRed »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4254
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #80 - 12/20/17 at 17:34:16
Post Tools
ReneDescartes wrote on 12/20/17 at 17:08:08:
So here is my line--not Ntirlis': 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7!? (4. Bb4=) 5.e3 O-O 6.Nbd2 Nbd7 (6...b6 and 7...c5 =) 7.Rc1 c5 =.


That (with 7. Rc1 c5 leading to equality) was also a main line in ECO (2004), with the cited games unsurprisingly including one by Hebden and one by Capablanca.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 856
Joined: 05/18/10
Gender: Male
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #79 - 12/20/17 at 17:08:08
Post Tools
Palliser recommend this in his Play 1.d4!, but only as an equal, anti-theoretical response to attempts to reach a normal Vienna or Ragozin. It's interesting that you played it against ...Be7.

This line is not covered in Ntirlis' book, although his move order against the Torre attack 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 e6 3.Bg5 allows White to transpose into it with 4.c4. But he doesn't mention this possibility.

To me it seems that, since White voluntarily gives up pressure on d5, one might well ask, "What is Bg5 then for?"  In many lines of the Queen's Gambit, the ...c5 break is not good because of the pressure on d5: the break leaves d5 either hanging or prone to become isolated without good piece play. But here Black can just go ahead with ...c5 after a little preparation with ...O-O and either b6 or ...Nbd7 and be immediately equal--not even forced to go for an isolated pawn or hanging pawns if he doesn't want them (though these too are probably fine here).

So here is a small Ntirlis-friendly repertoire I constructed after a little research: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Bg5 Be7!? (4. Bb4! is probably even better if you know the main lines of the Ragozin--White has already lost the chance to enter its popular sidelines with Qb3 or Qa5.) 5.e3 O-O 6.Nbd2 (if White instead plays Nc3 at any reasonable point he will transpose into Ntirlis) 6...Nbd7 ( 6...b6 and 7...c5 = may be even better, resembling a Tartakower rather than Ntirlis' Classical QGD) 7.Rc1 c5 = (7...h6 8.Bh4 c5= might be even better if you don't mind dealing with the harmless 8.Bf4 and Bxf6).
« Last Edit: 12/20/17 at 19:02:53 by ReneDescartes »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo