Latest Updates:
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis (Read 63366 times)
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


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

Posts: 1236
Joined: 05/17/10
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: 2533
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: 3265
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: 2533
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: 3265
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: 2533
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: 3265
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: 1236
Joined: 05/17/10
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: 2533
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: 4901
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: 1236
Joined: 05/17/10
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
 
ErictheRed
God Member
*****
Offline


USCF National Master

Posts: 2533
Location: USA
Joined: 10/02/05
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #78 - 12/20/17 at 16:34:39
Post Tools
Again I don't have Ntirlis' book yet, but I have to say that I find this question regarding 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Bg5 extremely surprising.  This isn't some crazy, tricky move order, unless Black happens to be a Semi-Slav player and would rather not face 4...c6 5.e3, with a Cambridge Springs.  It's fairly common for White.

Surely Ntirlis gave some small amount of guidance regarding move order here?  And what is Black worried about after either 4...Be7 or 4...Nbd7?  The only reasonalbe way that White can avoid a transposition back into repertoire lines (I think) would be to play 5.e3 and 6.Nbd2.  Sure it's playable (some strong GMs have played it), but surely not a huge deal?

It sounds as though, perhaps, Ntirlis overlooked these Nb1-d2 systems, which is perhaps slightly regrettable (a page or less might have sufficed to just give some guidance to the reader) but completely understandable.  I can't remember another book ever covering them.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kylemeister
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 4901
Location: USA
Joined: 10/24/05
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #77 - 12/20/17 at 16:26:25
Post Tools
Stigma wrote on 12/20/17 at 11:33:46:
In one of my earliest attempts at creating an opening repertoire as a junior, I did exactly this. I was always happy to see Black set up a typical Semi-Slav or QGD with ...c6 and ...Nbd7, when I would invariably put my knight on d2. This was based on studying the games of Mark Hebden, who used to play like this.


A player I recall as having a penchant for Nbd2 is Capablanca.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1667
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #76 - 12/20/17 at 16:20:38
Post Tools
doefmat wrote on 12/19/17 at 18:23:31:
Anyone know what the best move order is in the following line for this repertoire?

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Bg5

Should I play Be7 or Nbd7 here for reaching our repertoire lines?
This sort of question comes up in every repertoire. Our opponent plays a different move order, and we must choose whether to try to transpose back to our usual line, or adopt a completely different line. My preference is to carefully prepare a different line. Our opponent may be happy that they have "move-ordered" us, but the careful preparation part means that theoretically we are doing even better than in our usual line.


ReneDescartes wrote on 12/19/17 at 20:13:40:
If you intend to transpose, I don't think it matters, because you will soon play both moves ...

Otherwise, either move will transpose almost all the time. White, without good reason, will probably not put his knight on d2 instead of c3. That would be out of book for you, but weaker than Nc3.
I agree with ReneDescartes. (I also agree with the parts he wrote that I did not quote.) But if white plays Nbd2, I think the Lasker Defense is more effective than usual. So my vote is for 4...Be7.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Stigma
God Member
*****
Offline


There is a crack in everything.

Posts: 3265
Joined: 11/07/06
Gender: Male
Re: Playing 1.d4 d5 A Classical Repertoire, Ntirlis
Reply #75 - 12/20/17 at 11:33:46
Post Tools
ReneDescartes wrote on 12/19/17 at 20:13:40:
White, without good reason, will probably not put his knight on d2 instead of c3. That would be out of book for you, but weaker than Nc3.

In one of my earliest attempts at creating an opening repertoire as a junior, I did exactly this. I was always happy to see Black set up a typical Semi-Slav or QGD with ...c6 and ...Nbd7, when I would invariably put my knight on d2. This was based on studying the games of Mark Hebden, who used to play like this.

Of course White shouldn't get an edge with Nbd2, but it's not entirely toothless either. In particular, taking on c4 (a typical freeing move for Black) is often bad, since White will recapture with the knight and have full control of the e5 square.
  

Improvement begins at the edge of your comfort zone. -Jonathan Rowson
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 7
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo