Going back to slates original question, in the gewgaw line instead of the tempting 20Bh3+, which works out to black's advantage, simply 20 Q*f4 then after 20...B*B 21 K*g2 B*R 22. R*B R-d7 black is still ok, but in more drawish fashion. Earlier instead of 19...B*e4, black can play 19...Be6 when 20f3 B*R 21 K*B Qc1+ leads to the perpetual, reffered to earlier.
            In the nd7-b6, line Ivan Sokolov had a very good record, until he lost two games in a tournament of 2004. This is in the line g3, with a later Qe2, Rd1. It does not look straightforward for black to get sharp counterplay, but has to wait for the right moment when white decides to do something.

Bye John S

Thanks Semkov - I understand now.  The b4 square is one I will look out for....

And the line that Inn2 talks about, 7...Nb6, is in fact the line that Stohl seems to recommend (and in fact NCO also gives it in a footnote as leading to unclear play) in the Classical Slav, saying that it isn't clear how White should play for an advantage.  He quotes that game with Piket and Kobilaya(?) - I'm at work and cannot remember the exact name of the other player, but think it was played in 1997 or 98.  But it seems as though Vescovi-Anand is an update on this - I'll have to look for that game and compare it, but 7...Nb6 is presumably still fully viable for Black.   

Inn2 - thanks for advice on early e3 orders - I'm going to look at that.

What is the "more solid line" after 6.Ne5 in the Slav that you refer to, Inn?

(1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.Ne5)

If Black plays 6...e6, he gets hammered in the sac line that was already discussed.  So, that pretty much leaves the 6...Nbd7 line which can be played in 1930s style (not fun anymore) or in Morozevich' style (too much fun).  What is the solid line that you know of?

Slates, my comments were ment to frighten out the White players. It is not easy to play with a gaping hole on b4. Strategically Black's play is easier, although he is a bit cramped.

Interesting to hear players far stronger than me comment on the Slav as being very complicated.  I have all too readily believed what I have seen in print about the Slav being 'dull' and 'drawish', but having looked at the line with 6.Ne5 I can't agree that it is either.  Indeed, I have looked at the 6.e3 line as well and found that to be quite complex - out of interest, does anyone know whether or not it is more popular for White to play 6.e3 or 6.Ne5, or which performs better?  As mentioned before, I don't have databases to refer to and often have a problem with the online ones with Java problems on my computer, but I am still interested in statistics (probably too much so!). 
I also intend to take a look at the couple of lines my battered copy of NCO has on Semkov's move order with 4.e3, incidentally - I think this is similar to what Richard Palliser recommended for White in his Play 1d4 book, although if I remember correctly he used 3.Nf3 rather than 3.Nc3 before 4.e3 - not sure how that works out in the end, but I imagine there is a subtle difference in the way things go.

I think another thing that made me wonder about the Slav's recent credibility is that it seems to have been struggling theoretically in some areas - at my casual level this is no big deal if I can pick lines that simply give me positions I am comfortable in, I suppose, but in Igor Stohl's 'Instructive...' book he has the game Salov-Illescas 1997 featuring the bishop sac which Inn2 pointed out as scoring poorly for Black.....well, Stohl makes the same claim, and also comments that Black remains the side fighting for equality, so that line is one that I would avoid both for that reason and also because I find it rather complicated (!), something i didn't think the Slav was meant to be.

Smyslov Fan made a valid point about the Dutch - I've had plenty of fun playing it these last few months, and will continue to do so - I think it's improved my tactical abilities and the way that I conduct an attack, amongst other things, but I also feel I'd like to look at the Slav as a possible second defence, hence my posts here.  The Dutch hasn't let me down too badly yet, but I imagine the Slav would be more solid in the long run, and I like the thought that I may be able to increase my positional understanding of the game of chess by utilising this defence - the Dutch may have improved my tactical play, but I'm no spring chicken and tactics will always be the lesser part of my game.  I do however wonder if Semkov's comments about this defence ought to frighten me away from it!  There I was thinking the Semi Slav was complicated! 

Semkov     

Inn2's message crossed with  mine, and I missed that you were actually the co-author of "the" book on the Qc2 line.


Regarding the Classical Slav, 

It is obviously extraordinarily complicated.  I have found that I score a little better as Black than I do as White.  I've also noticed that relatively strong players (+2200elo) do indeed get lost very quickly, especially when playing the White side.  There are a number of positional considerations beyond just your average bean-counter approach of playing ...c5 or ...e5 whenever White lets you.  

Probably because I've been playing it for so long and because I'm well known locally for having a deep positional understanding (I'm also well-known for dropping easy wins to cheap tactics), I've never been scared of playing the Slav.  Perhaps you're right, the Slav does require a "feel" for the game that simple study won't give a player.  

For that reason I haven't been able to answer slates' question about "understanding" the Slav.  Maybe the correct answer for slates is "Just keep playing it and improving your game.  You'll eventually get it."

I think you'll find that the Slav will serve you better as a long-term opening than the Dutch.  I know there are those who disagree, but I find the positions to be richer, and they certainly are time-tested and approved by some of the best players of all time.