Smyslov_Fan wrote on 06/29/06 at 17:33:17:


Smyslov-Karpov, Leningrad 1971 is an excellent advertisement for playing with the IQP, isn't it?   

HgMan wrote on 06/29/06 at 11:30:00:



I agree completely with you, HgMan.  It is for this reason that White rarely plays the Panov variation.  The chances that Black knows how to play such lines as the Semi-Tarrasch QGD are far greater than the opponent knowing how to handle these positions as White.  So whether Black is bluffing or not, White will rarely try to find out.   

And since I'm not good at bluffing, I try to be prepared for the IQP games.  BTW:  One of my favorite Semi-Tarrasch games of all time was Smyslov-Karpov, Leningrad, 1971.  White managed to push his IQP all the way to d8(Q) by move 29 and Black immediately resigned!

I feel that White has an advantage in the Semi-Tarrasch, but only if White has made a careful study of the critical lines.

Probably the scariest thing about the Panov-Botvinnik, especially players who come at it from 1.e4, is that it transposes so easily to a myriad of d4 openings including the Semi-Tarrasch, Nimzo-Indian and others.

Having said that, if White wants to invest the energy into those lines White has every chance of being successful.  After all, I suspect that Black's usually just bluffing about knowing all the critical lines in the 1.d4 lines.

I've often played the Black side of 1.c4 c6 and I have faced maybe one opponent who ventured 2.e4 against me.  I've faced only a couple of Panov-Botvinnik attacks after 1.e4 c6.   

White would rather play with his pieces (for instance, the Classical style) or advance his e4 pawn and try to run over Black.  Since both of those score well and are more in the spirit of 1.e4, it makes sense that White plays that way.

As Polonius  in Hamlet would say, "since brevity is the soul of wit", the answer to your question is: 

"Play whatever you like.  Chances are that White will be just as much in the dark as you are anyway!"

Baburin's book is fantastic--but I heard somewhere (on this forum somewhere, perhaps?) that Baburin was asking people not to buy his book, because of some royalty dispute with Batsford.  Nevertheless, it is a must-have for these kinds of positions, especially if you can find a secondhand copy.

And Aagaard's book has one exceptional chapter.  I think he talks about that in one of his Excelling books; he wrote one section the way he wanted, but then decided/discovered that it would be impossible to write the whole book that way.  Bit of a shame that he wasn't able to keep up that standard throughout the book...

"Frankly i am always surprised at 1. e4 players who play the Panov, can they really play IQP positions well?"

Why not? I learned it via the Danish Gambit Declined (3...d5) and the Morra Gambit Declined (3...d5). The latter can transpose to the Semi Tarrasch or the Steinitz Variation of the QGA after 4.exd5 Qxd5 5.cxd4 Nc6 6.Nf3 e6 7.Nc3 Qd8. In such a position I once beated a player with an ELO+ of about 150 points.
I have always felt, that there are similarities between gambit play and play with the IQP.

lnn2 wrote on 06/02/06 at 08:40:04:

But that's the point, or at least my point, of playing the Panov as a 1.e4 player - to improve my experience of a pawn formation I would encounter very rarely if at all as White if I did not play the Panov

The IQP pops up after 1 e4 as well. The Giuoco with Bd2 (in fact many e4 e5 openings where white goes c3 d4 and black counters with d5 after exchanging on d4), the c3 sicilian etc. In fact you often end up with a small center with only a pawn on d4 and a c-pawn, if black then can force c5 or e5 and can exchange the d-pawn and white recaptures with the c-pawn you end up with the IQP after all. That scenario can easily happen in the CK or French and even the scandi.

Yes it can happen a variety of other ways too - its a classic tabiya position - actually instead of ...Bf6 if ...Nf6 (which seems almost as popular) I am betting this could come from a QGA also