Does Black get enough play in the Clarendon Court defense?

I've heard there's a "Foxy Openings #1" video on the Clarendon Court by GM Jonathan Levitt.

I'm not particularly worried about White's tries for direct refutation (3.e4, 3.h4, 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.f3, etc.). White will probably have difficulty even reacting to d4 c5 d5 f5.

My biggest concern is the positional g3 lines (with or without c4), where Black fianchettos the f8 Bishop. But my concern is that Black doesn't get any play since there's no pawn break for Black.

I'm rated 1980 USCF and I'm currently playing 1.d4 e6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 exd5 4.cxd5 d6 as Black with relatively poor results (the problem being a lack of space and piece play), even though it looks like Black has a nice position.

I think u r right to be worried about the g3 lines against the CC def.
1.d4c5 2.d5f5 3.c4g6 4.Nc3Nf6 5.Nf3d6 6.g3Bg7 7.Bg20-0 8.0-0Nbd7 9.Qc2Rb8 10.a4a6 11.h3b6   difficult to see how B gonna develope in a v cramped position.B cannot get rid of the backward e pawn without incurring deeper weakness.W has a small but nagging advantage.Esentially the potential for B ot err is greater than W.B i feel is only fighting for  draw.
My suggestion use CC depending on the opponent.Dont adopt it as a mainline defense against d4. Good luck .

Valiantangel wrote on 06/21/10 at 10:40:10:


I bought the foxy tape mentioned and used it in speed games with good results.  I'm not so sure of it's soundness either but in the g3 line here maybe Black could play ...Na6, ...Nc7 and put the Bishop on d7 to support the ...b5 break.

Sources which may be of interest in this context:
Levitt: Foxy Openings, A complete defence to 1.d4 (GM-Video 1995)
Okhotnik/Appleberry: New Chaos Counter Attack, ChessMix.com
Ehlvest: The Dutch Benoni, in SOS 4 (2006)
Maurits Wind: Clarendon Court, in Kaissiber #25 (2006; 3 pp.). Based on the sources above, with many new ideas. The line which led to a decline of 2...f5's popularity is (also) discussed.
(Full disclosure: That's my magazine!)
Avrukh, 1.d4 vol. 2 (2010)
Bücker: ChessCafe.com. Checks Avrukh's recommendation and comes to the conclusion: about =.
(Another full disclosure: my column. But it's free, so any potential damage will only be virtual.)

Interesting.

I've faced it against a 2000+ and against a 2200+. I won against the expert, lost against the master. I had never seen it before I faced the 2000 player and just winged it.  Against the master, I played a critical line and got the better game but lost in the complications. The master has played it against 2400+ opposition.

My own impression is that the Clarendon Court is far enough from "normal" chess that the better player will win.  It's a good way to level the playing field against a booked up player (me).  But it's probably not quite solid enough for professional or correspondence chess. I certainly wouldn't want to try to make a living defending such an opening.