Quote:


Thanks MNb - superlatively useful references. (For those interested - it's Tim Harding The Kibitzer on Chesscafe.com for June 1999 - "Have a Hack with the Hennig-Schara", and July 1999 - "Hennig-Schara revisited".) It's gonna take me a while to work through, and then maybe I'll face cxd4 only once again in future 

Harding is actually rather enthusiastic about it. Your assessment is clearly not an assessment yielded by Harding's researches !

I opted for Qxd4 instead of Qa4+ (mainly because I missed the obvious superiority of the latter), and then dithered for a long time on move 7, because I was worried about the apparent problems with castling that Black might cause me if I captured and exchanged queens, and was also worried about moving my queen around so much as White, who is supposed to be a tempo ahead. I therefore opted for the weird 7 e4, which I see (unsuprisingly) nobody else does (there is an e3, which is much better). I got into an inferior endgame as white and won only because of a generous mistake from my opponent at the end allowing a mating combination. What is comforting from the Harding discussions is that the perplexities I suffered in considering how best to respond as White are at least in good company.

Thanks again for the spot-on reference!

PS - How to remove the little [i] signs when doing italics?

Hello all. I should greatly appreciate some discussion of the best options for White against the Tarrasch when Black plays 4...cxd4 instead of exd5 (the Schara-Hennig gambit, which I now notice MNb has mentioned in this thread as a 'solution, though not ideal'). Qa4+ is better than Qxd4, as the likely interposition of the Bishop will allow the Queen to capture on d5 after doing so on d4. In 'opening explorer' on chessgames.com, there are relatively few games in the database that follow this line (about 100 to about 600 exd5). Is it because 4...cxd4 is that unsound?

So - pointers appreciated (and sites with similar kinds of opening databases even more appreciated!) MNb?

There is still a solution, though maybe not an ideal one.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 cxd4!? the Von Hennig-Schara Gambit.
1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 c6 the Noteboom
Black avoids the Marshall Gambit.

Another, more simple option is 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c6 4.e4 Bb4!? but I do not know what the current state of this variation is.

I own the Van der Werf/Van der Vorm book and I rather liked it. It is a good overview with good explanation. But in about 120 pages you cannot expect a complete treatment of course.

Concerning my taste ... must I repeat it?

@Mnb: Yes I already thought of the Noteboom...
Do you know any books about it?

Jono

Both Aargaad and Keilhack reckon in thier books, that the reason why Kasparov (or other top.GM`s) stopped playing the tarrasch is, there are to many drawing options for white.

Oviously both authers belive in the soundness of the system.

As an hobbyplayer who read in my freetime two tarrasch-books, dearly hope they are right!!!!

"I don't think highly of IZ"
Well, Ranjk, this seems to be the only point we disagree on. I must confess, that only recently (about two years ago) I got so much confidence, that I dared to play the IZ in an email game. So there is still hope for you!

"I don't think Grischuk would play an inferior system."
Why then did he face these problems against Lautier?
Why would Kasparov have given up the Tarrasch after 1984?
BTW, a few strong players have dabbled in the IZ - Short to name the strongest.
I do not really by such arguments. It is not Short, Kasparov or Grisjuk who plays your game; you have to do it yourself. If you trust the Tarrasch more than the IZ - then play it. For me, I can only say that I have reached excellent results with the IZ. But who am I after all?

I don't think Grischuk would play an inferior system.

He plays the Tarrasch but i can't remember if he ever played the Classical Dutch (or IZ) :p

I don't really trust the Stonewall but i strangely have a very good score with it: only one loss in around 10 games (+7 -1 =2) but my wins were almost all due to the opponent overpressing.

I have tried TD in Net-Blitz: I have had decent results despite not knowing much theory, and I also won lots of Black games when people transposed to the French

BTW, you can play me on echecs21.com. My Handle is of course Jonorigolo.

Jono

Quote:


I await with interest MNb's response ...

Hehe, you haven't checked out many of the posts on this site

The Ilyin-Zhenevsky is often called the Classical Dutch - (although I seem to remember reading somewhere - possibly on the forum somewhere - that there is a subtle distinction between the two or that the I-Z is a variation of the Classical or something).

It has replaced women as the principal love of MNb's life ... to the enormous advantage of anybody using this site to learn about the Dutch!

It sometimes seems as if he will not rest until everyone has given up every other move except 1.e4 for fear of meeting this set-up ...

I can hear Alumbrado grumble already, but when it comes to beat weaker opponents, the Iljin Zjenevsky might be an idea? If you already play the French, 1.d4 e6 is a good option.
Concerning the French Exchange, opposite castling provides dynamical play. Then you only must find something against 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.exd5 exd5 4.c4.

Quote:


I think the Tarrasch is an excellent choice for taking on weaker opponents.  BTW, I think the French is good for those purposes too, but if you want something sharper, you might want to think about the Alekhine?

Quote:


No, the English in Meeting 1.d4 is just fine.  I think Aagaard is completely fluent in English and in any case it has a British publisher and editors.  Really, I can't think of a single instance in the book where there is a problem.

I already own "Meeting 1.d4" and it's an interesting read.  I was thinking in taking the Tarrasch as my second defence but I gave up. The problem of the Tarrasch is that if white knows the theory, he can play lines where black have no chance of winning. The drawback for white it's that his chances in these lines are, in general, quite microscopical. I'll give an example:

1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 c5 4.cxd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.g3 Nf6 7.Bg2 Be7 8.O-O O-O 9.Bg5 cxd4 (I don't believe in the 9... c4 lines) 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Be3 Re8  (This is THE main line of Tarrasch) 12.Qa4 Bd7

One problematic line for black is 13.Rfd1 (Aagaard gives a ! to this move) and now there is only two realistic answers:

a) 13... Na5 (Aagaard not even mention this line) 14.Qc2 Nc4 15.Nxd5! as in Lautier-Grischuk, Eighien les Bain, 2001. If a highly talented 2700+ player like Grischuk had trouble in the resulting ending, it's best for us mortals to stay away from this line;

b) 13... Nb4 is probably black's best bet (recommended by Aagaard) and it's pretty uninspiring. After the rather forced sequence 14.Qb3 a5 15.Nxd5 (!, according to Aagaard) Nfxd5 16.Bxd5 Nxd5 17.Qxd5 Ba4 18.Qxd8 Raxd8 19.b3 Bd7, we have a ending where black have no chance of winning. This line already ocurred in a few games and black active pieces gave the draw. In general white played 20.Rd3 (a computer suggestion) and after 20... Bf6 white pieces were tied in a very tight knot. But I think that 20.Nf3!? (never played before and as far as I know never recommended before) is a interesting try: there is the threat 21.Bb6 and the a1 rook is not pinned along the a1-h8 diagonal. After any move from the black's light squared bishop, he can swap a pair of rooks and play his B at b6, e. g. 20... Bb5 21.Rxd8 Rxd8 22.Bb6.

In this 20.Nf3 line, there is much less pressure on white and it seems that black active pieces it's not sufficient for the pawn. But I didn't analysed it in detail and I don't think that white plus, if she have any at all, is that great. But one thing is clear: black will NEVER win in this line and he's fighting for the draw. Look the comment by Aargaard about line b): "... it is normally more comfortable to have the extra pawn in these kind of positions, as opposed to having to prove the compensation". I quite agree!


Regards,
ranjk

The book is good, and the Tarrasch is quite a good choice for club players imho - a lot of White players are prepared to 'wing it' a bit against the Tarrasch for some reason and don't really know the subtleties of move order and piece placement.  Black can get surprisingly active if White either plays too passively or overestimates his position.  It really requires a good 'feel'.

There is a book in German by Kielhack, but it is several years old.  Also the writing is not your standard chess German, but rather quite idomatic and difficult (for me at least) to read.  It is not really essential to have.

But Aagard's book is rather up-to-date, and I think that beyond that, all one needs is an up-to-date data base (Grischuk upholds this defense) and a good understanding of how to play IQP positions.  I would highly recommend Baburin's "Winning Pawn Structures," which treats IQP exclusively.

I do also second Ed Gaillard's view that Schiller's book on this subject is one of the few Schiller books actually worth looking at.

Hi all!

I'm looking for a (good) book about the Tarrasch but i didn't find many.

Do you know about others than Meeting 1.d4??

Jono