Latest Updates:
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Slav questions (Read 10140 times)
Semkov
Guest


Re: Slav questions
Reply #32 - 09/29/05 at 13:47:00
Post Tools
@Smyslov_Fan: I told you, I do not feel the Classical Slav so I renounced playing it with either side when I was twenty. Accordingly I have no recommendation whatsoever.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
John Simmons
Guest


Re: Slav questions
Reply #31 - 09/27/05 at 04:08:22
Post Tools
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
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Slav questions
Reply #30 - 09/27/05 at 03:16:21
Post Tools
Inn,

I play the ...Nb6 line occasionally.  It's not a quiet variation at all.  After all, Black has virtually vacated the kingside.  This is a very dicey line for Black to consider his fall-back in case things go wrong in the other variations.  Having said that, I do think that Black has good chances of scoring in the ...Nb6 line against most players.  Against strong IM/GM competition however, I just don't trust it as much as the old Alekhine-Euwe lines. 

Semkov, What do you think, should Black seek his chances in the ...Nb6 lines that Burgess, NCO (probably written by Burgess) and a few others have recommended?  Or should Black look elsewhere for a "solid" line?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Slav questions
Reply #29 - 09/27/05 at 03:06:44
Post Tools
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: Slav questions
Reply #28 - 09/27/05 at 01:09:15
Post Tools
6. Ne5 Nbd7 7. Nxc4 Nb6 is solid enough. NIC yearbook 74 has a survey with the title "Working Harder for a Smaller Advantage" with the game Vescovi-Anand as the main dish.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Slav questions
Reply #27 - 09/27/05 at 00:11:56
Post Tools
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?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: Slav questions
Reply #26 - 09/26/05 at 21:12:55
Post Tools
@slates: both 6. e3 and 6. Ne5 are roughly equal in popularity. And yes, it is strategically more difficult for White than Black in the classical slav, which is why I  think the classical slav is not a bad choice for Black provided he chooses the more solid lines.

3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e3 is a better move-order for White than 3. Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 as both 4... Bf5 and 4... Bg4 is stronger in the latter case. I used to play these early e3 move-orders, but  now think White's chances for advantage is highest in the a6 slav after 5. c5 and semi-slav 5. Bg5, hence reluctance to use early e3 nowadays.  Undecided
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Semkov
Guest


Re: Slav questions
Reply #25 - 09/26/05 at 16:12:57
Post Tools
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Slav questions
Reply #24 - 09/25/05 at 14:53:45
Post Tools
Well, after that last post I went online for some blitz, and the first game I got against 1.d4 went thus;

Incidentally, 1710 would be higher than my rating, at a guess. (I should register...)



livingoutloud (1710) - guest5850 [D18]
ICC 2 12 u Internet Chess Club, 25.09.2005

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Qb3 a5 10.Bd2 0-0 11.Nh4 Bg6 12.Nxg6 hxg6 13.f3 Nh5 14.e4 Ne5 15.dxe5 Qxd2 16.Rad1 Bc5+ 17.Kh1 Ng3+ 18.hxg3 Qh6# White checkmated 0-1


I remembered the moves up to 9...a5, but then 10.Bd2 was new to me.  From then on I don't doubt we both made mistakes (not least of all his 16.Rad1 which gave things away) but I suppose the point made in the thread about White having to be careful to keep things under control was evident here. I didn't spot any big mistakes tactically until move 16, although exchanging on e5 prior to then was maybe also poor - it was what I was hoping for, anyway - but is it wise for White to exchange on g6 in these positions?  NCO notes that Black is happy for this exchange as it opens the h-file, which was certainly of use to me in this game, but generally I don't know that I like the look of this as I give up one of the Bishops I so like (my QGD Tartakower leanings have taught me to appreciate the bishop pair).  Granted there won't be many games where Black gets to win like this, but at least it's a good motivator. Smiley

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Slav questions
Reply #23 - 09/25/05 at 14:09:28
Post Tools
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. Smiley

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!  Shocked

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: Slav questions
Reply #22 - 09/25/05 at 01:57:19
Post Tools
I agree the Classical Slav is complicated.  The problem is that White's queenside is rather weak and sensitive, which means that even if Black castles queenside (like in the Morozevich 11... g5 variation), it is not easy to attack Black's king, even though optically Black seems to be running a big risk. This approach somewhat reminds me of the Samisch KID: castle at the side where you are strongest!

it is not easy for White to keep things fully in control, even in the solid lines like 7... Nb6 and 5... Na6 . I guess I don't mind playing the White side of these positions because I tend to do well with space, but must admit i find the "+=" assessments in the books rather deceiving! "+=" here should mean: White has a slight advantage, but if he tries hard to win, he will lose!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Slav questions
Reply #21 - 09/25/05 at 00:58:25
Post Tools
Semkov  Embarrassed  

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."

« Last Edit: 09/26/05 at 08:37:33 by Smyslov_Fan »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Semkov
Guest


Re: Slav questions
Reply #20 - 09/24/05 at 17:20:17
Post Tools
To Smyslov_Fan: I do have "some" analysis on 6.Qc2 - see http://chess-stars.com/complete_list.html#Latest Trends in the Semi-Slav: Anti-Meran.
I do not know about you, but for me the Classical Slav is one of the most difficult openings to understand. This is an opening for champions and the better wins. A very strong GM could lose as White (against people with deep positional understanding) without committing any obvious mistake. You can never learn the Classic Slav. You have to feel it. It is full of variations with the deceiving tag "+=" which could be true, but it is extremely easy to lose orientation. That's why most professionals prefer to avoid it. This could be achieved exactly by the move order we consider in our book: 1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3.
Some people say that the Botvinnik is the better choice. Even if that were true, (and I do not think so), that does not solve the main problem - how to avoid the Classical Slav. I repeat, you just cannot learn this opening. The Anti-Meran is many times easier, even in its most extreme forms like 7.g4.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Slav questions
Reply #19 - 09/24/05 at 15:04:44
Post Tools
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.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Slav questions
Reply #18 - 09/24/05 at 14:50:05
Post Tools
Good idea, Inn2 - I used to wonder about that, but didn't really afford it much attention.  I have Bogdan Lalic's book on the Bg5 QGD systems, and he devotes a chapter to the Cambridge Springs in that, for Semi Slav players wanting to avoid the alternatives. I'd be interested in reviewing that if only I felt I was strong enough to play a decent meran, but that's a bigger problem for me than the move order issues, I think.  So, back to square one - Slav as a backup to my Dutch?  I'll have to experiment some more with it. Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Slav questions
Reply #17 - 09/24/05 at 10:42:56
Post Tools
Semkov mentioned that he has some analysis on the Qc2 line in the Meran.  Maybe he can be encouraged to share some analysis here!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: Slav questions
Reply #16 - 09/24/05 at 10:37:41
Post Tools
6. Qc2 b6 is a decent move which avoids alot of theory with 6... Bd6.  Sakaev/Semkov's Anti-Meran work is terrific, it deals solely with 6. Qc2 and explained away all my doubts and more. If you have trouble with 5. Bg5, consider the Cambridge Springs. Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Slav questions
Reply #15 - 09/24/05 at 10:16:50
Post Tools
Yes, that line does look like hard work for Black (the Bishop sac line). Incidentally, with the Semi Slav I was trying to say that the problem I had was with reaching a Meran proper, as I didn't enjoy facing 6.Qc2, or even worse, the 5.Bg5 Botvinnik - I avoided the Botvinnik like the plague, but dealing with whatever White played after my 5...h6 (6.Bxf6 or Bh4) was a real headache for me. So the whole Semi Slav became a bit of a no-go area for me - I harbour hopes that the Slav may be less complicated, and I like looking at the ...g5 line we've talked about in this thread, but I'm still not sure that it's right for me.  I'll keep looking!
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: Slav questions
Reply #14 - 09/24/05 at 09:59:59
Post Tools
The abysmal open-slav statistic is largely due to the bishop- sac endgame line (6. Ne5 e6 7. f3 Bb4), where Black has only scored a poor 37%. The ridiculous number of players willing to venture this for Black is surprising. White has all the winning chances, and in the worst case, can always sac back the piece for a few pawns to draw. Aside from this line, the open slav isn't so bad!

I would say its difficult for White to avoid the Semi-Slav and its main lines. If he does anything else other than book, the usual punishment is dxc4 + b5. Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Slav questions
Reply #13 - 09/24/05 at 09:14:44
Post Tools
Ouch, 42% in the mainline Slav?  Doesn't sound too inviting.  I like the Meran, actually, but I'm not confident enough in my abilities to be able to handle the positions that arise from it, despite my efforts to play it. And that's if you even get to see a Meran on the board....  but back to the Slav, and those stats are interesting. Good to see the ...a6 Slav hasn't fizzled out - and I accept your comments on the Exchange Slav.  I remember Flear recommending ...a6 for Black in these lines whilst covering this in his book on the ...a6 Slav proper.  So thanks for quoting these stats - personally I have usually been a QGD player (Tartakower) but over recent months have been having lots of fun with the Classical Dutch.  The Slav thing came to my attention again after playing through those games in GK's MGP, and as the Dutch sometimes doesn't feel solid enough (!) I thought I'd test drive something other than my QGD.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: Slav questions
Reply #12 - 09/23/05 at 20:17:11
Post Tools
Quote:
I have Flear's book on the ...a6 Slav, and I want to have a good look at the Exchange lines again before I play too much more Slav!  My interest in the Slav has been reawakened a bit here but I know I struggled with it last time I tried. 


The Exchange Slav is not as boring as its reputation. Don't just look at the position after move 3, things usually get more interesting by move 15 or so.

In Flear's Starting Out book, he says Black scores 42 % in the main open slav (4... dc4),  44% in the a6 slav, and 46% in the Semi-Slav. Make of this what you will! As someone who's played all three for both colours, I should say the semi-slav has been most rewarding for me in terms of intellectual, aesthetic, and competitive satisfaction Smiley
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Slav questions
Reply #11 - 09/23/05 at 16:08:26
Post Tools
I agree completely about Burgess' legendary dilligence.  In fact, it was that very quality that led me to buy both his book on the Taimanov and on the Slav.  That, and I play both lines.  I have to admit to being slightly disappointed by both books, and it probably has to do with how he organised them.  

Transpositions are rampant in modern chess, and these two openings are prime examples.  Burgess correctly points out the importance of the transpositions, but by focusing so much on these, he's made the book difficult to use.  There are so many cross-references that flipping the pages back and forth as you try to get to the heart of a single line could break the spine of the book!

I bet that Burgess' style would work well as an e-book, but it leaves me wanting some straight-forward analysis in the physical realm of books.  I still like his style and will continue to seriously consider buying any book he writes on a topic of interest to me.  But I hope he's able to solve the problems that these two books have presented his readers.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Slav questions
Reply #10 - 09/23/05 at 12:16:52
Post Tools
Yes, hard to imagine that Burgess would miss lines out.  He's very diligent judging by the other opening work I have of his, on the Taimanov Sicilian.  Diligent to the point that I got confused by some of the transpositions - he certainly includes a great deal of information.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Slav questions
Reply #9 - 09/23/05 at 11:27:15
Post Tools
Burgess' book does spend some space on ...Nb6.  I'm still holding out hope that Flear will write a follow-on to The Slav for the Tournament Player and deal with these positions in depth.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Slav questions
Reply #8 - 09/23/05 at 10:57:22
Post Tools
Thanks Inn2 for the post on 7...Nb6.  I had a little play with this and thought it felt ok but kind of cramped as Black. I remember both NCO and Igor Stohl (in his Masterpieces book) quoting the same game featuring Piket (I forget the other player) as leading to an unclear position or equality.  Thanks for the recommendation re. Burgess and Rogozenko - I don't play the Slav enough to warrant these purchases yet, but maybe it's something for the future.  I have Flear's book on the ...a6 Slav, and I want to have a good look at the Exchange lines again before I play too much more Slav!  My interest in the Slav has been reawakened a bit here but I know I struggled with it last time I tried.  Thanks for the analysis gewgaw, seems to make sense to me.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
gewgaw
God Member
*****
Offline


I love ChessPublishing.com!

Posts: 683
Location: europe
Joined: 09/09/04
Re: Slav questions
Reply #7 - 09/23/05 at 07:59:30
Post Tools

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.Ne5 Nbd7 7.Nxc4 Qc7 8.g3 e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Bf4 Nfd7 11.Bg2 g5 12.Nxe5 gxf4 13.Nxd7 0-0-0 14.Qd4 Qxd7 15.Qxh8 Qd2+ 16.Kf1 Qxb2 17.Re1 Bb4 18.Qf6 Qc2 19.Ne4 [19.g4 Be6 20.Be4 Qxc3 21.Qxc3 Bxc3 22.Rc1 Bd2 23.Rc2 Bxg4] 19...Bxe4 20.Bh3+ Kc7 21.Qxf4+ Kb6
It seems black is okay.

  

The older, the better - over 2200 and still rising.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: Slav questions
Reply #6 - 09/23/05 at 07:47:45
Post Tools
Hi, about 7... Nb6: unfortunately I could find no mention of it in Flear's new Starting Out book (yet another omission!), have amended my post on the book accordingly. 

NIC has surveys for both 7... Nb6 and 11... g5 recently in  latest yearbooks, they are definitely worth checking out.

I would say 7... Nb6 is a decent choice, superior to the shaky 11... g5. It's described as dull, stodgy and drawish by various sources (Burgess, Sadler), but to be honest I would be annoyed to face it as White, even though White has a  theoretical "+=". It is a very solid variation, if Black does nothing (!), its not even entirely clear if White can make progress.

Vescovi-Anand was the most recent high-profile encounter, though must say White was simply out-classed in that game.

If you don't have Burgess or Rogozenko (Chessbase CD), you ought to get them.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Re: Slav questions
Reply #5 - 09/23/05 at 07:24:05
Post Tools
Thanks to each of you for the input.  I'll do as Smyslov Fan suggests, and continue to work through those other classic games, whilst I will try to work on the line some more myself - I can't remember too well what I played after 17.Re1 Bb4 18.Qf6,  but I know it wasn't Qc2, and probably should have been! At least then maybe I wouldn't have found it so tough. I'm a weak player and didn't spot this move. Still, I also prefer 13...0-0-0  (reminds me of the Meran) to ...Bxd7 aesthetically and to play, but am starting to understand why people (John Simmons) suggest leaving ...g5 to Moro and co.  Incidentally, in Igor Stohl's Instructive Modern Chess Masterpieces he made a comment about how Moro used ...f6 before trying ...g5 but then reverted to ...f6 in the same tournament - there was no accompanying analysis of the ...g5 line, and if memory serves there was a comment to the effect that ...g5 probably wasn't the reason Moro lost the game......anyway, it served to illustrate Stohl's reluctance at that point in time to investigate ...g5 further, perhaps because he doubted the move would stay around long? 
In Eingorn's book (Decision Making at the Chessboard) he has a game with this line where he mentions that 7...Nb6 is more popular nowadays that 7...Qc7.  I think I'll take a closer look at that, too...
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
John Simmons
Guest


Re: Slav questions
Reply #4 - 09/23/05 at 04:37:19
Post Tools
Hello,

    The line you are reffering to occurred in the last round of the recent British championship between Ricard Pert and Woodward. Andrew Martin had a few problems showing how black wins after Q*R on the demonstration board. When I looked at the game afterwards with a computer, found the best that black could do was force a perpetual.
         In the game, Pert traded into a endgame with extra pawn, with black having two bishops, for not quite enough compensation.
              My feeling is 11...g5 should be left to Morozevich, black is under pressure in too many lines. In fact find the whole line with 7...Qc7 unapealing for black. White has positional pressure with bg2 on queenside pawns, and black has tactical problems too

Bye John S
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Slav questions
Reply #3 - 09/23/05 at 00:40:11
Post Tools
Inn2,

I agree completely that 12.Ne3! is the answer, but it's only a partial answer so far.  If you have Kasparov's MGP vol 2, you may want to take a look at it.

(I am unfortunate enough to play both sides of this line, and it's hard to keep up on such an intricately sharp line.)
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
lnn2
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 1504
Location: nc
Joined: 09/22/04
Re: Slav questions
Reply #2 - 09/23/05 at 00:20:37
Post Tools
Hi, I come from the White side in this position, and have only investigated 12. Ne3! (if there is a refutation of 11... g5 it must be found here), and Jobava's 12. Bxe5!?

With regards slates's question, iirc Flear's new book doesn't say much either and only gives the standard line with 12.Nxe5 gxf4 13.Nxd7 0-0-0 14.Qd4 Qxd7 15. Qxh8, and then 15... Qd2+ 16.Kf1 Qxb2 17.Re1 Bb4 18. Qf6 Qc2 is "unclear".
I will provide  more information on Flear's book on another thread.

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Smyslov_Fan
God Member
Correspondence fan
*****
Offline


Progress depends on the
unreasonable man. ~GBS

Posts: 6902
Joined: 06/15/05
Re: Slav questions
Reply #1 - 09/22/05 at 16:12:30
Post Tools
Answering the last question first:  I'm pretty sure that Flear only mentions that ...g5 is interesting and gives one sample line.  MGP (My Great Predecessors) is a wonderful source for some thoughts on this variation.  The great thing about ...g5 is that it's very fresh. I like 13...0-0-0 if only for its aesthetic and shock value.  I haven't tried 13...Bd7 but the Ra8 belongs on the d-file and the only question is whether the King belongs on the c-file.  I found Kasparov's brief comments to be at least as helpful as Burgess' entire book on the Slav!  This shouldn't be surprising since Burgess quotes only Kasparov's analysis for much of this section. Lips Sealed 

Your problem is going to be that the lines you're analysing are extremely concrete.   I've found that playing through the games of the Alekhin-Euwe matches in which Euwe won three in a row in this variation (without ...g5) has helped me to understand the opening more. Kasparov has some great analysis in games 14,15, and 16 of MGP vol 2 to complement Game 10.

I should add a word of warning:  I mixed up my systems and played both ...f6 and ...g5 only to get crushed by GM Shavaradorj and then get the autopsy printed in the Rocky Mountain News (one of the most influential papers west of the Mississippi). Embarrassed

In other words, stick with Kasparov's analysis, it's about as up-to-date and useful as anything I've seen.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
slates
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 507
Location: England
Joined: 01/27/05
Gender: Male
Slav questions
09/22/05 at 15:51:41
Post Tools
Hi, I have a couple of questions about the Slav, and in particular line D17.

Firstly, in line D17 with Morozevich's 11...g5, could someone help me understand a problem I have, please?  I have been playing this line (1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.Ne5 Nbd7 7.Nxc4 Qc7 8.g3 e5 9.dxe5 Nxe5 10.Bf4 Nfd7 11.Bg2 g5!?) against my old tabletop computer and after 12.Nxe5 gxf4 13.Nxd7 0-0-0 14.Qd4 I have been following the analysis in Kasparov's MGP Vol 2 page 38 where he gives 14...Qxd7 15.Qxf4 Bd6 16.Qc1! Kb8 17.0-0 (Kramnik-Anand 2002) - he then gives a couple of options for Black at move 17 with both 'leading to a double edged game'. However, my computer plays 15.Qxh8, taking my rook, and after 15...Qd2+ 16.Kf1 Qxb2 17.Re1 Black doesn't appear to have much.

I don't have any other sources on the Slav, and haven't looked at any databases.

So should Black avoid this line (13...0-0-0) in favour of 13...Bxd7 or am I missing something?  I rarely play the Slav, but find this line interesting and wonder what the latest developments are.  Unfortunately I do not currently subscribe to the site, so would be grateful for any guidance. 

Secondly,   could anyone tell me whether this line is covered in Glenn Flear's new Starting Out book on the Slav/SemiSlav?  Or indeed if he covers 7...Nb6 in this line instead of 7...Qc7 - I noticed that Smyslov Fan made brief reference to this book in a thread here but couldn't find much else anywhere on it yet.   Any opinions on this book, please?

Thanks all.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo