Thanks for this, Gerry. I was just wanting to know whether Glenn thought 5 ...Na6 could equalise -- interesting to know he doesn't think so.

Gerry1970, I'd be interested to know what Flear says.

Hello All:

Sadler has 9 pages; Glenn Flear has 6 pages on it in the SO book.

Take care,

Gerry

HgMan wrote on 11/15/04 at 10:49:22:

Yes.  In my experience, it was the knight that always went to b4.  Black's dark-squared bishop was generally quite happy on e7.

I also seem to recall thinking that Sadler's Slav book provided better instruction on this line than did Burgess's...

I know this will come as a surprise, but I've played both sides of this opening.


My own experience is that most players avoid the critical lines when I play the Black side and I get an easy game.  (In fact, I've never lost from the Black side in a serious game!)

The problem is that I've also never lost from the White side. I once played Matthew Ho (about 2200 FIDE) and won a comfortable game by playing 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dc4 5.a4 Na6 6.e4! 

Black can't occupy the b4 square with two pieces at the same time, so the Na6 remained a bystander as I sacked a pawn to gain an advantage in the center.  Interestingly, the Na6 itself later became a target and Black couldn't cover weaknesses on both sides of the board.  I don't think I created anything original in my game.  Rather, I simply followed the main recommendations and won in under 40 moves.

To summarize, the Smyslov Variation is fun to play, especially against players who know the books but not the ideas.  It's miserable to play against someone who know how to play against it though.  If you do choose to play it, play it sparingly and choose your opponents wisely! 

How do you go on then ?
Both ...Nb4 and ...Bg4 don't seem to offer much, and ... Be6 runs into Ng5.

Thanks!  I'd missed the Smyslov collection.  Burgess offers very little--it's a quick sideline (and "maybe deserves more attention"), but he doesn't spend much time on it.  Sadler's book devotes a chapter to it, and it seems as though the theory hasn't moved on too much since then...

I've only been fiddling with this line, but it offers some nice imbalances in the position that can upset the White player.

As a way of avoiding reams of theory, I've begun playing the Smyslov Variation of the Slav Defense (1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 Nf3 Nf6 4 Nc3 dxc4 5 a4 Na6).  The knight has eyes on b4 and can be very effective tactically on that square since the a-pawn has been pushed forward.  I've noticed that a number of books claim that this idea is overlooked and fairly solid, but then they don't spend much time on it.  Does anyone play it with any frequency, and can they recommend where I should look for a good grounding?