Okay, how irritating.  Guests aren't allowed to delete or modify a post, and once I register I can't delete or modify a guest's post.  So we're all stuck with that last boo boo.

Quote:


I didn't even have anything particularly great to add.  I've never had to face 5. Nd2, so all I have against it are the Simon Williams lines in my head.  Still, if MNb is touting it as the answer to 4...Bb4+, then it's only a matter of time before everyone up here in San Francisco is playing it!    So I'll have to do some research and look again at that thread MNb mentions.  It's certainly not a scary *looking* move.  I wonder if Black can take advantage of the undefended d4 pawn by finagling an early ...c5?  Dunno, dunno, I'll have to futz with it when I get home tonight.

Thanks MNb for the advice.  I must re-read McDonald's chapter on this! I think I have been playing for the ...e5 advance in conjunction with the f-pawn too often, as McDonald stresses the advantage of having both the f- and e- pawns intact - the 'dynamic centre' - this is something I get occasionally (and it's very nice when I get it) but all too often I end up having to play fxe4 and struggling with that isolated e-pawn.   

By the way, Kasparov doesn't go beyond saying '5...0-0! is correct, rather than...' and then he gives an inferior line in his My Great Predecessors Vol 1., so that is no help to you.

Quite. Give me a couple of hours and I'll look up the line GK gave and if it's relevant I'll post it. 

Incidentally, my biggest problems so far with the IJ system seem to be when White achieves e2-e4, a pawn advance I seem to have trouble blocking in lines where White deviates early on.  I haven't encountered many of the double-fianchetto variations you mentioned in another post as being troublesome, but I fear I am not looking after thjat e4 square as carefully as I should be.... 

Quote:


I'm not sure what bravehoptoad recommends, and I am unable to give more than one move due to being at work & not having the book in front of me, but I seem to recall that Kasparov gave 5...0-0! (his exclamation) as a suitable response to 5.Nd2 in one of the volumes of My Great Predecessors.  Can't remember which volume, though, or where the line went afterwards!

"8.Qc2 Nc6! 9.e4 Nb4 10.Qe2 Nxe4 11.Nxe4 fxe4 12.Qxe4 e5! "intending 13...Bf5, activates Black's game". - At least to me it's not obvious why 13.dxe5 Bf5 14.Qxb7 here is so much worse than in the next example..."
The missing pawn on e2 plays a role. Still I think Black has to prove his compensation after 14.Qxb7 Rb8 15.Qa7 Bd3 16.exd6.

On TalJechin's other question I am not entirely sure, which line he means. Anyhow, after 8.Re1 Ne4 9.Qc2 Nxc3 10.Qxc3 Nc6 11.d5 Bf6 12.Qc2 Nb4 13.Qd2 e5 14.a3 Na6 15.Qxa5 e4! the White queen is in danger of getting trapped.

Personally I think, that White can prove an advantage after 1.d4 e6 2.c4 f5 3.g3 Nf6 4.Bg2 Bb4+ 5.Nd2! So I am curious what bravehoptoad recommends.
Schwarz' 1964 book on the Dutch spends 30 pages on 4...Bb4+, but only 4 on 5.Nd2. Why don't you post your reply in Glenn Flears thread, where I already made the same comment?
At the other hand the more common 5.Bd2 relieves Black's position. After exchanging bishops Black has hardly problems forcing e6-e5. In my opinion White's queen's bishop is the strongest light piece, so it is a positional error to give it up so easily.

I also think, that White can prove an advantage after 1.d4 e6 2.Nf3 f5 3.g3 Nf6 (b6 is also along Indian lines, but after 4.Bg2 Bb7 5.o-o Nf6 6.c4 White has the dangerous threat of 7.d5!) 4.Bg2 Be7 5.o-o o-o 6.c4 Ne4 (Alekhine Variation) 7.Nbd2 Bf6 8.Nxe4 (in general this is why I do not like Ne4 too much) fxe4 9.Ne5 d5 10.Ng4 Be7 Vaganjan-Bronstein, Leningrad 1971, 11.Bf4! c5 12.dxc5 Bxc5 13.Rc1.

I have corrected the typo's Alumbrado refers to in his next post. I am glad he still reads my posts.

Pinski calls 7...Ne5 Black's best try along with 7...a5, but he only gives four games to it.  They're snuggled into the 7...Qe8 chapter.  Williams likes 7...Ne4 much better, giving it (!), but still only has five and a half pages on it.   

For most variations, these two books are quite complimentary, since they cover different things in depth.   

I play ...Bb5 against White's early c4, and its chief advantage is that there's practically no book on it at all.  I've heard this called the "Dutch Indian."  Next to it, the IZ looks like the Najdorf Sicilian or something.   

If White plays an early c4, I play the Dutch Indian.
If White plays an early Nf3, I play the Stonewall.
If White plays an early Nh3, I play the IZ.   

Since I open with 1...e6, this forms an almost complete repetoire, though as it turns out, I end up playing the Dutch Indian probably 90% of the time, since at my club anyway White tends to push c4 on the 2nd or 3rd move   

Sometimes I wish there were more on the Dutch Indian, and sometimes I'm glad there's not.  Chess Publishing's very own Glenn Flear tried to start a thread about it on this very forum, but got no takers.   

I hear a Dutch book by Bellin, pretty old, has a lot more on this opening.  Does anyone know if that's true?

If "stupidest" isn't a word, then what is it?

Quote:


Ha!  I picked up on that as well--goodness knows I've scribbled that in the margins of enough student papers.  I don't doubt that "quote" will ultimately come to be accepted as a noun...